ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-12969-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
KJ Munson LLC,
DBA: Sun King Fencing,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Continental Pool Builders LLC
License No. ROC 352417,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-12969-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 1, 2026
APPEARANCES: Ryan Bailey represented Complainant with witness Kenneth Munson. No appearance on behalf of Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Continental Pool Builders LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 352417 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about December 12, 2025, KJ Munson LLC (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $21,256.13.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation on December 30, 2025, alleging a possible violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent filed a timely answer requesting the matter be dismissed. The Registrar denied the request via an order dated January 13, 2026, and referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 3:00 PM on March 5, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
On March 4, 2026, the parties jointly requested that the matter be referred for mediation. A mediation was scheduled for March 27, 2026. However, a Stipulated Motion to Continue Mediation was submitted by the parties on March 26, 2026, and mediation was continued to May 1, 2026.
The mediation was unsuccessful and the matter was reset for hearing at 9:00 AM on June 1, 2026. A May 6, 2026, order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on June 1, 2026. 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.
Mr. Munson testified on behalf of Complainant that the total due to Complainant was $ 21,256.13. The witness stated that all agreed-upon work was performed as directed and that Respondent had not paid, despite multiple attempts to collect payment.
Mr. Munson also testified that any work-related issues had been resolved to Respondent’s satisfaction. Namely, he stated “as subcontractor we follow what the lead contractors tell us.” He contended that Respondent raised no further issues with Complainant until the Complaint was filed.
Respondent did not appear for the hearing, choosing to rely on the record only. The record does not support a finding that Respondent lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on June 22, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 352417 was first issued on May 24, 2024, and was revoked on May 26, 2026. Such prior License record also reflects that were nine open complaints against Respondent’s license, nine prior complaints that led to discipline, and four prior complaints that were resolved or settled.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of its right to prosecute its complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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.
The evidence established that Respondent owed a total of $21,256.13.
Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $21,256.13 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 352417 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $21,256.13 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $21,256.13 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025-12969.
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, June 22, 2026.
/s/ Fahd Nazir
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Ryan D. Bailey, Esq.
Stone Canyon Law
[email redacted]
Continental Pool Builders LLC
[email redacted]
KJ Munson LLC
DBA: Sun King Fencing
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff