ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-00149-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Vicki J McDermitt,
COMPLAINANT
v.
United Contracting Group LLC
License No. ROC 328583,
RESPONDENT
No. 2026A-00149-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 4, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Vicki J. McDermitt appeared on her own behalf. Jarod Huston appeared on behalf of Respondent United Contracting Group LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Peru appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-6 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
United Contracting Group LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 328583 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about December 6, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent perform a roof replacement at her residence in Glendale, Arizona.
On or about January 6, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor workmanship from Respondent with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru. The jobsite inspection was performed on February 5, 2026.
Investigator Peru then issued a Written Directive on or about February 18, 2026, which provided in pertinent part as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 6, 2026.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Wood sealed improperly, S. corner covering improperly built, S. post cladding short and uneven, trim badly cut at roof.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
At the time of this inspection, I observed several bad cuts, improper transitions, and poor installation. REF: (JSI PICS).
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 2 - Wood filler improperly used, fascia on house twisted Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
At the time of this inspection, I observed excessive wood filler residue in several areas. The wood filler was not applied properly and not finished properly.
Additionally, I noted the Fascia board in the front of the house to be twisted and to exhibit an excessive gap at the splice/bevel joint cut. REF: (JSI PICS) Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
. . .
On March 17, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about April 1, 2026, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about April 16, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on June 4, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Peru testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He testified that a representative from Respondent failed to appear at the jobsite inspection and that no corrective work was performed.
Complainant testified that this Complaint was the result of some corrective work which was done in agreement to close the Complaint in 2025-03653. Complainant testified that Mr. Huston agreed to make the repairs “look nice” however, there were still issues with the work, such as it not being correctly attached to the roof, the wood not being properly sealed, and exposed nail heads.
Jerod Huston testified that the initial work was poorly done, and so as an apology he agreed to provide some upgrades to the project. Mr. Huston testified however that every step he took towards that “apology” required more changes which needed correcting, so he decided to “draw the line” and stop working, as he still was not paid on the remaining balance owed by Complainant. In conclusion, Mr. Huston testified that he went “above and beyond” and that “his conscious was clear”, while still acknowledging that there were issues with the work.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 19, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 328583 was first issued on April 23, 2020. The license record also reflected that there were two open cases, one of which was the present case, and three “resolved/settled cases”.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as there were bad cuts, improper transitions, improper use of wood filler, and overall poor installation.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that there was no corrective work performed. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 328583 for a period of two days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 19, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Vicki McDermitt
[email redacted]
United Contracting Group LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff