ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-13079-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LUIS PAINTING LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Rodeo Construction INC
DBA: Scottsdale Signature Homes,
License No. ROC 360006.
No. 2025A-13079-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 17, 2026
APPEARANCES: Mark A. Khoshaba, Qualifying Party, appeared representing Complainant Luis Painting LLC. No person appeared on behalf of Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet. Complainant Exhibits 1 through 6. _____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rodeo Construction Inc. dba Scottsdale Signature Homes is the holder of License No. 360006, B General Residential Contractor, issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) on July 11, 2025.
On or about December 16, 2025, the ROC received from Complainant a Non-Payment Complaint Form (“Complaint”) alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant on invoices in the total amount of $7,800.00.
On December 31, 2025, ROC issued its Citation citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(10) for failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.
On January 12, 2026, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation. Respondent indicated the following:
A payment was in good faith to this case. Apparently the payment didn’t reach its destination, therefore; we will need to reissue another payment. In the meantime, I am working with the homeowners on their approval of paying in full if they are satisfied with the quality that was provided. I will ask the homeowners to get a written statement of their approval or rejection.
The Complaint was not resolved informally and the ROC subsequently set the matter for hearing.
At a hearing setting in March 2026, the parties discussed the matter and determined to come to an agreement regarding possible settlement. The matter was then continued to allow the parties to complete the payment agreement.
By ORDER dated March 20, 2026, the hearing was set convene on April 17, 2026 in the event the matter was not resolved.
At the time of the hearing, Respondent failed to appear.
Complainant’s first invoice was $8,500.00 with a $2,000.00 payment, leaving $6,500.00 to be paid. Complainant’s second invoice was $1,300.00. The total remaining unpaid on the two invoices is $7,800.00.
Complainant recently received a Zelle payment of $2,000.00, leaving a remainder due from Respondent of $5,800.00.
Since the date of the hearing, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that the matter was resolved with a payment to his satisfaction which would resolve the matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution is ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of 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 preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
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 hearing evidence established that Respondent had been invoiced a net total of $7,800.00 and that $5,800.00 remained unpaid on services which Complainant had performed.
Respondent failed to appear and, thus, failed to demonstrate and support any statutory justification or excuse for failing to issue payment to Complainant.
Based on the hearing record, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant the remaining $5,800.00 for services obtained from Complainant in connection with Respondent’s business activities.
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, on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar suspend Respondent Rodeo Construction Inc. dba Scottsdale Signature Homes License No. 360006 until Respondent has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents which establish that Respondent has paid Complainant $5,800.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar does receive and accept Respondent’s evidence that Respondent has paid Complainant $5,800.00 in certified funds, the Registrar shall close the matter.
No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of the outstanding $5,800.00 to Complainant.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, May 7, 2026.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by e-mail to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Rodeo Construction INC
DBA: Scottsdale Signature Homes
[email redacted]
LUIS PAINTING LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff