ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-12726-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Premier Environmental Products LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Hornick Contracting Co Inc.,

License No. ROC 146081,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-12726-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 12, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Todd Christianson

John Porter

Respondent: No Appearance

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

Hornick Contracting Co Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 146081, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 7, 1999.

On December 5, 2025, Premier Environmental Products LLC (Complainant) filed a written complaint with the Registrar for failure of Respondent to pay an invoice for work performed in August 2025, with an amount due of $9,224.62.

The Registrar issued a Citation on December 30, 2025, charging Respondent with a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(10), requiring a written response from Respondent by January 14, 2026.

On January 13, 2026, Tim Bottorff, on behalf of Respondent, filed a written answer to the citation asserting that on September 18, 2025, Respondent received a text from the project owner stating he had hired Complainant to do the work, and that the project owner had received and paid the invoice. Mr. Bottorff further asserted that Respondent did not charge or receive payment for the services at issue.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing on March 12, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing and hearing packet to all parties at their addresses and email addresses of record. A February 4, 2026, order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on March 12, 2026.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Todd Christianson testified, on behalf of Complainant, that on or around August 9, 2025, Tim Bottorff contacted Complainant requesting assistance with a project that was nearing the permit expiration date. On August 11, 2025, Complainant met with Respondent to walk the project site to discuss the project requirements. On August 14, 2025, Complainant submitted a quote to Respondent for $5,025.00 to complete “all wiring and install internal parts.” Mr. Bottorff advised he would have the pump, control panel, and UV delivered.

Mr. Christianson further testified that on August 15, 2025, he emailed Mr. Bottorff advising that Complainant would like to start working on the panel, pumps, floats and UV on the morning of August 19, 2025, and asked Mr. Bottorff if he would be able to have all the parts available by the prior afternoon, to which Mr. Bottorff replied in the affirmative. When Complainant arrived at the project site on August 19, 2026, the parts were not onsite and there was a potential leak with parts already there.

On August 25, 2025, Mr. Bottorff requested Complainant add the cost of purchasing the pumps to the electric install invoice. Complainant agreed.

Mr. Christianson testified that during the project, Complainant unexpectedly encountered conditions which required manual digging, increasing the labor cost.

On August 27, 2025, Complainant sent the invoice at issue to Respondent via email and accounting software. Mr. Christianson testified that Complainant’s records documented that Respondent opened and viewed the invoice on September 3, 2025. Mr. Christianson further testified that he reached out to Respondent multiple times via email and text message and did not receive any replies.

On questioning, Mr. Christianson testified that Complainant and Respondent had had a working relationship for over 20 years; thus, doing business via text and email messages without a formal contract and invoicing via email and accounting software was a standard operating procedure and not atypical.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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,

failure 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.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Complainant and Respondent demonstrated a long working relationship with a standard operating procedure. In this case, Complainant followed the typical standard operating procedure resulting in the invoice at issue. However, Respondent failed to pay the invoice and provided only an unsworn Answer in its defense.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), as charged, by failing to pay Complainant $9,224.62 for work completed in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based on Respondent’s violation 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. 146081 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish it has paid Complainant $9,224.62 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Respondent receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $9,224.62 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025A-12726

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 14, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Hornick Contracting Co Inc

[email redacted]

Premier Environmental Products LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff