ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-13196-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ultimate Lath & Plaster LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Arizona New Image Contractors LLC,

License No. ROC 239066,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-13196-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 8, 2026

APPEARANCES: Qualifying Party Michael Garza appeared for Complainant Ultimate Lath & Plaster LLC. Qualifying Party Tim Spradley appeared for Respondent

Arizona New Image Contractors LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet); Complainant Exhibits 1 through 16; Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 8. _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Arizona New Image Contractors LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 239066, KB-1 Dual Building Contractor, issued by the ROC on November 26, 2007.

On December 17, 2025, Ultimate Lath & Plaster LLC (Complainant) filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form (Complaint) with the ROC against Respondent alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant for work performed at 16631 S. 15th Street in Phoenix, Arizona. The project was a stucco finish on a fireplace remodel which remodel had been constructed by Respondent.

In the Complaint, Complainant alleged that its invoice dated November 25, 2025, in the amount of $1,700.00 remained unpaid.

On December 31, 2025, Respondent filed a response to the Complaint, attaching multiple text messages between the parties.

On January 26, 2026, ROC issued a Citation in this matter, citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (Ariz. Rev. Stat.) § 32-1154(A)(10), failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.

On February 6, 2026, Respondent filed its Answer to the Citation, generally indicating that Complainant had completed the work before Respondent could inspect it and when Respondent did later that day, it was obvious that not all areas had been stuccoed. Further, that when the plasterer returned, it subsequently became obvious to Respondent that mesh was showing through the finish; additionally, the next day, there were cracks and the stucco was not level at the openings.

The matter was not resolved between the parties and the ROC subsequently set the matter for administrative hearing.

At hearing, Complainant noted that its plasterer had returned on the first day and had stuccoed the area that had been missed. Further, that when the plasterer had been called back over the third time, the plasterer or Complainant advised Respondent that the additional changes being requested, i.e., to level the structure, would cost another $2,000.00.

At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that it had rebuilt the fireplace structure and that the Homeowner had wanted something other than a sand finish, which was why Respondent reached out to Complainant. Respondent indicated that when Respondent arrived to the home to inspect the work, the mesh was showing through the stucco and there were cracks emerging as the stucco dried. Respondent argued that part of Complainant’s job would have been to make the stucco application “level” on the structure.

After Respondent leveled the structure, another contractor came in to redo the stucco for about $1,000.00.

Complainant argued that Respondent has failed to pay on the submitted invoice, for which Respondent is in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

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.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1156.01 states, in pertinent part, that after a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge may provide restitution to any person who is injured by an action of a licensee.

Respondent bears the burden to establish a sufficient justification for nonpayment of the invoice. Respondent argues it should not have to pay Complainant the full amount of the invoice.

Respondent failed to demonstrate both that it lacks the capacity to pay Complainant the monies owed and that it has not been paid by the homeowner for the work Complainant performed on the fireplace which Respondent rebuilt.

Complainant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) and has not made payment on the $1,700.00 invoice. Therefore, Complainant also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s ROC License No. 239066, KB-1 Dual Building Contractor.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Arizona New Image Contractors LLC ROC License No. 239066, shall be suspended until Respondent provides the Registrar with sufficient proof that $1,700.00 has been tendered to Complainant in certified funds.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that after the Registrar has received Respondent’s proof of payment to Complainant, Complaint Case No. 2025-13196 may be closed.

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, April 30, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Arizona New Image Contractors LLC

[email redacted]

Ultimate Lath & Plaster LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff