ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-12642-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Myght Construction LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Mighty Roofing LLC

License No. ROC 338046, 339951

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-12642-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 2, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Vanessa Valenzuela

Javier Valdez

Respondent: Mark Tannenbaum

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Mighty Roofing, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 338046 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 6, 2022.

On or about November 11, 2025, Myght Construction, LLC (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for removal and replacement of a roofing system.

On or about December 4, 2025, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay Invoice #1277, amounting to $10,800.00.

On December 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(10). Respondent timely submitted an Answer on January 2, 2026, stating Complainant was not owed any compensation due to numerous issues cited in the homeowner’s inspection and the fact that Respondent reimbursed the homeowner their complete material deposit.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on January 27, 2026, setting the hearing for March 2, 2026.

A hearing was held on March 2, 2026.

In her opening statement on behalf of Complainant, Vanessa Valenzuela contended that Complainant was hired by Respondent to tear off and replace roofing. Complainant required a 50 percent deposit, which amounted to $6,000.00. Complainant received a check for the deposit amount on two occasions, and both checks were returned unpaid from the bank. When the first check was returned, the roof was ninety percent complete, and Complainant stopped work.

In his opening statement on behalf of Respondent, Mark Tannenbaum contended that Complainant did not tear off the full area of the roof, leaving the customer with five layers of roof around the air conditioners and the work was subpar. Mr. Tannenbaum admitted that the deposit payments were returned, however, due to the quality of Complainant’s work, he had to reimburse the customer $10,450.00.

Ms. Valenzuela testified that Complainant was hired to tear off 23 squares of roof and replace it with a new system of closed-cell foam. At the walkthrough to discuss the scope of work and estimate, Mr. Tannenbaum informed Javier Valdez that the prior roofing company had already sealed beneath the air conditioners and emphasized that the primary concern was blistering in the field area of the roof. Therefore, based on Mr. Tannenbaum’s direction and budget, removal and reinstallation of the air conditioners was not contracted, performed, or billed.

On questioning, Ms. Valenzuela testified that the deposit was due prior to work commencing. Despite not first receiving the deposit, Mr. Valdez decided to start work on the contract because he had an established working relationship with Mr. Tannenbaum. Ms. Valenzuela explained that work commenced on November 12, 2025, with tear-off of the existing roof. On November 13, 2025, Complainant sprayed the foam and base coat. Final detailing was scheduled to be completed on November 14, 2025, however, because the deposit check had been returned, Complainant did not complete the final detailing. Mr. Tannenbaum asked Mr. Valdez to return and finish the detailing approximately four times between November 14, 2025, and November 21, 2025, and did not disclose any workmanship concerns. Mr. Valdez advised Mr. Tannenbaum that a payment was required to complete work and Mr. Tannenbaum agreed to schedule a payment for November 24, 2025. Ms. Valenzuela testified that the first Complainant learned of the workmanship allegations was in Respondent’s Answer.

Mr. Tannenbaum testified that on November 19, 2025, he agreed to make the deposit payment on November 24, 2025. On November 21, 2025, he received the inspection report from the homeowner revealing subpar work and about 250 square feet around the air conditioners that was not torn off as contracted. Subsequently, the homeowner fired Respondent, and a refund was provided on her request. Thereafter, Mr. Tannenbaum cancelled the scheduled payment to Complainant.

Mr. Tannenbaum further testified that Complainant’s estimate was based on a standard expectation of a two-layer roof; however, when the tear-off crew began working it was discovered that the roof had four layers. On this discovery, Mr. Tannenbaum instructed the crew to tear off the whole lower roof and send him a change order for the extra work. Mr. Tannenbaum testified that the maximum amount allowable for a foam roof is two layers, thus, once it was known there were four layers, the area around the air conditioners had to be removed and the crew was “made aware to remove it all.” On questioning, Mr. Tannenbaum testified that he did not contact Complainant directly and advised only Complainant’s subcontracted tear-off crew about the discovery then requiring the entire roof to be torn off, including under the air conditioners.

Mr. Tannenbaum further testified that the tear-off crew caused damage to the homeowner’s living room ceiling of which Mr. Tannenbaum advised Mr. Valdez immediately and Mr. Valdez responded that he would look at it. Additionally, after the tear-off crew finished, the homeowner advised him that a pipe in the laundry room was also damaged. Mr. Tannenbaum advised the homeowner to have it repaired and Respondent would reimburse her. Mr. Tannenbaum also advised Mr. Valdez of the damaged pipe and Mr. Valdez responded that he would look at it.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

In the instant matter, the parties did not dispute that a $6,000.00 deposit was due to Complainant prior to work commencing, the deposit was never paid by Respondent, and due to non-payment Complainant did not complete the project. There was a dispute between the parties as to the scope of work, workmanship, damages caused, and costs thereof. The workmanship issues alleged by Respondent were not before the Tribunal in this matter. However, because there existed a genuine dispute regarding whether the incomplete work met industry standards, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not find that the final payment was due at the time the complaint was filed.

Upon review of the evidence submitted in this case, Complainant established that a $6,000.00 deposit was due and owing. However, Complainant failed to establish that any monies were “due” for materials or services thereafter rendered to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor.

The preponderance of the evidence showed that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $6,000.00 as a deposit for work performed in connection with Respondent’s contracting operations.

Based on Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 338046 until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted documents that establish it has paid Complainant $6,000.00 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $6,000.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-12642.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, April 16, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Mighty Roofing LLC

[email redacted]

Myght Construction LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff