ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-13432-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Patrick Mate,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
JLA Builders & Renovators LLC,
License No. ROC 357433,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-13432-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 7, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Partick Mate appeared on his own behalf. Qualifying Party Jessy Garcia appeared representing Respondent JLA Builders & Renovators. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Cooke appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet).
FINDINGS OF FACT
JLA Builders & Renovators LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 357433, CR-9 Concrete, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) on February 28, 2025.
On December 29, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent. The Complaint indicated that the parties had contracted on October 14, 2025, and that Respondent had performed poor work, which had not passed Pima County inspection, and then abandoned the concrete slab project. Complainant had paid Respondent $56,000.00 on the parties’ $70.000.00 contract.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Cooke (Investigator).
On February 3, 2026, Investigator conducted a Jobsite Inspection. At that time, Investigator took multiple photographs demonstrating the status of the contracted project, which was that the slab work had been completed by another contractor. Investigator’s jobsite notes reflect the following:
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
Jobsite General Notes: The work in this complaint has been corrected by an alternate contractor due to the abandonment of the job by the respondent. The respondent explained at the jobsite inspection that the job was underbid by himself. The amount of concrete as well as the distance to the job were underestimated. The final payment listed in the contract was requested to be paid early to cover the cost of these items. After negotiations failed, both parties reverted to the existing contract and the respondent did not return to complete the pour. The complainant has proceeded with the construction of his home using an alternate contractor. Noted are the areas that were addressed by the building officials to have failed inspection. These areas were said to have been ready for inspection by the respondent prior to abandoning the job.
Complaint Item: 1 - Footings not constructed to dimensions shown on approved plans.
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant showed multiple areas were existing columns or concrete was present. According to the complainant, these footings were deemed incorrect by inspecting officials. This work was corrected and completed by another contractor due to the abandonment of the project by the respondent.
Complaint Item: 2 - Spiral stair footing does not meet plan-required size and depth.
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant showed an area designed for a spiral staircase to land. According to the complainant, this footings were deemed incorrect by inspecting officials. This work was corrected and completed by another contractor due to the abandonment of the project by the respondent.
Complaint Item: 3 - Required reinforcement per plans not installed.
Investigator’s Observation: Per the complainant, the plan required rebar size was not met in many areas and/or was making contact with the earth. According to the complainant, the placement of this rebar was deemed incorrect by inspecting officials. This work was corrected and completed by another contractor due to the abandonment of the project by the respondent.
Complaint Item: 4 - Site not properly compacted; contractor admits compaction incomplete.
Investigator’s Observation: Both parties agreed compaction was remaining prior to the abandonment of the project. According to the complainant, the compaction was deemed incorrect by inspecting officials. This work was corrected and completed by another contractor due to the abandonment of the project by the respondent.
Complaint Item: 5 - Standing water present in footings at time work claimed 'ready to pour'.
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant explained that he received an email from the respondent stating the pads were ready for inspection. According to the complainant, standing water was present in the footings at the time of inspection. This work was corrected and completed by another contractor due to the abandonment of the project by the respondent.
Complaint Item: 6 -Work failed required Pima County pre-slab inspection and not corrected.
Investigator’s Observation: Reasons for failure explained in alternate complaint items
Complaint Item: 7 - Contractor refuses to proceed without advance payment not required by contract.
Investigator’s Observation: The respondent explained in this opening statement that the job was severely underbid. The amount of concrete and time and distance of travel was underestimated. The contract in place explains the specific draw schedule. When advance payment was denied by the complainant, the respondent did not return to finish the pouring of all the flatwork patios.
Complaint Item: 8 - Contractor disputes plan-required work as change order contrary to contract.
Investigator’s Observation: According to the complainant, the respondent disputed the plan required specifics for the pad and rather proposed them as a change order.
Complaint Item: 9 – Column footers not constructed to dimensions shown on approved plans.
Investigator’s Observation: Addressed in item number 1.
On February 11, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of:
Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)
Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
On February 10, 2026, Respondent filed its Answer to the Citation to the ROC. Respondent stated that the work was ready for the concrete pour after virtual County inspection approval on December 19, 2025. Respondent indicated that the weather conditions then changed and there was a “material funding and payment alignment” issue between the parties. Respondent argued he was not given a reasonable opportunity to resume work prior to Complainant issuing the Notice of Intent to Terminate the contract on December 30, 2025.
The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing and issued a Notice of Hearing. OAH issued an ORDER advising the parties of Virtual meeting information and telephone numbers for the parties’ participation.
At hearing, Investigator testified regarding the background in this matter. At the time of the jobsite inspection, Investigator noted construction deficiencies in a step and in a ramp.
At hearing, Complainant testified that Respondent had not properly placed the J bolts and the preparation work had not passed County inspection. Complainant indicated that he and Respondent disagreed whether the site was ready for the concrete pour in addition to the monetary issue. Complainant indicated that there had been a cost of $5,138.61 to have the J bolts done and a special inspection. Complainant stated that Respondent sought the one final payment from Complainant before he would proceed with the pour.
At hearing, Respondent argued that there had been timelines in place for the preparation work and the pour. Respondent indicated that Complainant wanted the pour done by December 23, 2025, but that he could not do it. Respondent stated that he had asked for the concrete to be paid ahead, out of the final payment due. Respondent argued that it had not abandoned the project.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on April 27, 2026. Respondent’s ROC license is active and there is one open case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.””
The evidence of record established that Respondent stopped work on the project and failed to perform work for which it had contracted and for which it received payments. Respondent’s contracting activities were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 357433 for a period of three business days.
///
///
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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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 27, 2026.
/s/ Kay Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
David Cooke
[email redacted]
JLA Builders & Renovators LLC
[email redacted]
Patrick Mate
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff