ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-00176-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-11
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Maher Ayyoub,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Gate Keeper Services LLC
ROC License No. 336604,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2026A-00176-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 10, 2026 at 1:00 PM.
APPEARANCES: Maher “Mike” Ayyoub (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Gate Keeper Services LLC (“Respondent”). James Carter appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the Registrar’s attached administrative file, and April 30, 2026, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
Having reviewed the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On February 09, 2022, the Registrar issued License No. 336604 for Specialty Dual CR-60 Finish Carpentry contracting to Respondent. The license was renewed through February 28, 2026, and revoked by the Registrar effective April 15, 2026. Sean Rogers is listed as the Qualifying Party and Owner on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 2348 W. Hayden Peak Dr. Queen Creek, Arizona 85142. Respondent has an active $6,750.00 surety bond on the license issued by Platte River Insurance Company, effective January 19, 2022. The license has been previously disciplined by the Registrar on one (1) occasion and currently has one (1) pending complaint against it which is presumed to be related to the case at bar.
On January 06, 2026, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant via United States postal mail against Respondent’s License No. 336604 alleging abandonment of a residential construction project. Included in the mailing was a copy of the parties’ contract, plans and schematics, proof of payment, and project-related correspondence issued between the parties. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2026-00176 and assigned it to James Carter (“Investigator Carter”) for investigation.
On January 13, 2026, Investigator Carter issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on February 19, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On February 19, 2026, Investigator Carter inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was not present. Investigator Carter also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties and took 5 photographs of the project site. When he was finished, Investigator Carter drafted his Jobsite Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Carter derived a total of three (3) complaint items from Complaint No. 2026-00176. Based on his firsthand observations, Investigator Carter substantiated complaint item 1. Investigator Carter found Respondent in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) 32-1154(A)(1). He noted as follows:
[Th]e 30'x12' patio extension had not been started. Respondent did return after the signing of the contract to mark on the home where the extension would be attached to the home. [Respondent] will obtain a permit then complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions and pass final permit inspection.
(Emphasis added.)
Additionally, Investigator Carter determined that substantiated complaint item 1 required Respondent to perform corrective work sufficient to remedy the identified deficiencies, by appropriate means.
On February 19, 2026, Investigator Carter issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent due to his substantiation of Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against License No. 336604. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on March 12, 2026, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On March 18, 2026, after Complainant verified with Investigator Carter that Respondent failed to address the Directive, he forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of Compliance Notes.
On March 24, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until April 08, 2026, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On April 09, 2026, the Registrar received Respondent’s untimely Answer whereby Mr. Rogers did not address either alleged statutory violation but instead proposed a refund of monies in installments to Complainant that he had made towards the project. Per Mr. Rogers, he would tender five (5) post-dated checks to Complainant in “(4) payments of $1000.00 with the remaining balance as final payment for refund.” [sic]
On April 01, 2026, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on June 10, 2026. Per the April 27, 2026, Notice of Hearing the issues to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:
Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)
Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified on his own behalf and called Investigator Carter as a witness. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
Complainant owns a residential property with his wife, Aida Ayyoub, located at 6316 N. 127th Ave. Litchfield Part, Arizona 85340.
On or about July 10, 2025, the parties entered into a $9,305.71 construction agreement for the installation of an exterior patio shade at Complainant’s residence.
On July 10, 2025, Complainant issued a fifty percent (50%) deposit to Respondent via personal check.
Respondent marked where the extension would be attached on the residence, but did not perform any substantive construction on the project.
Although License No. 33604 was active and in good standing with the Registrar between February 19, 2026, and March 12, 2026, during that time Respondent did not perform any corrective work, secure an appropriately licensed contractor to perform the corrective work at issue, or enter into a financial settlement agreement with Complainant to resolve the dispute between the parties.
At no point in time during the Directive’s compliance period did Respondent allege a denial of access to the project site or request an extension of thereof.
Additional Evidence
On October 22, 2025, Jonathan Reguira emailed Complainant from Mr. Roger’s email address on behalf of Respondent to advise that he was “working to get all refunds completed as fast as possible,” and that Mr. Rogers was on “permanent medical leave.” Mr. Reguira apologized for the delay and asked Complainant if Respondent could make monthly payments until he was fully refunded.
On October 29, 2025, Complainant sent a follow-up email to Respondent but did not receive any further replies.
On January 14, 2026, Mr. Rogers informed Investigator Carter that Respondent had “closed,” and advised that Mr. Reguira had refunded Complainant. Although Investigator Carter asked Mr. Rogers for proof of a refund to Complainant he never received one.
Complainant never received a refused, in whole or in part, by or on behalf of Respondent.
Closing Arguments
In closing, Complainant opined that it was “unfair” he had tendered monies to Respondent for labor and supplies that never materialized, in light of the fact that Respondent never issued the promised refund.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1101 et seq. and 32-1154(A). The matter was properly brought before OAH pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
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 in 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.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
“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)(1) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[a]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.
Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “
The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.
The material facts in the case at bar are undisputed.
It is undisputed that Respondent’s license was active and in good standing when the underlying contract was entered into with Complainant and when the Directive was issued. It is also undisputed that Respondent failed to meaningfully execute the parties’ contract, and that Complainant had paid Respondent half of the contract’s balance owed. It is also undisputed that Respondent failed to adhere or otherwise comply with the Registrar’s Directive or enter into a settlement agreement by the expiration of the corrective work order.
Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to address the Registrar’s Directive or ask for an extension prior to the expiration of the corrective order’s compliance period. These are affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Respondent did not provide an indicia of evidence to rebut the credible evidence presented by Complainant. Additionally, the record is devoid of exigent or otherwise mitigating evidence in favor of Respondent.
Here, because the credible evidence of record supports a finding that Complainant established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and 32-1154(A)(22) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline License No. 336604.
Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that five days after the effective date of the Final Order in this matter License No. 336604 as issued to Respondent be revoked by the Registrar.
NOTICE
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, June 17, 2026.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Copy mailed/e-mailed/faxed to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Inv. James Carter, Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Maher Ayyoub, Complainant
6316 N. 127th Ave.
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
[email redacted]
Gate Keeper Services LLC, Respondent
c/o Sean Rogers, Agent
2348 W. Hayden Peak Dr.
Queen Creek, AZ 85142
[email redacted]
By OAH Staff