ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-00368-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Diane Milford,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Baja Surfaces LLC
License No. ROC 351175,
RESPONDENT
No. 2026A-00368-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 16, 2026
APPEARANCES: Investigator John Smith on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). Complainant Diane Milford on behalf of herself. Jeffrey Hamblen, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Baja Surfaces LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 351175 issued by the Registrar.
On February 11, 2025, Diane Milford (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for pool deck renovation.
On January 12, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project. The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator John Smith the same day.
On February 4, 2026, Investigator Smith scheduled a jobsite inspection and issued two letters. The first Warning Letter to Respondent was for prima facie violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1124(B); and the second Warning Letter to Respondent was for prima facie violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.
Following a jobsite inspection on March 3, 2026, at which both parties were present, Investigator Smith issued a Written Directive on March 4, 2026, to Respondent that provided 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 Thursday March 20, 2026. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2 (Allegation): “Product wearing off on coping of the pool. Product flaking at edges of Ramadas and on the pools. Seams”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
As stated in the submitted complaint, work was completed 4/4/25.
Current conditions include:
Primarily at the perimeters, there are several locations of flaking and peeling.
At transitions to ramada(s) and Gate(s), there are areas of flaking and pealing.
There is at least one area of a bubble below the coating, approximately 12-15 inches in diameter.
The respondent acknowledged:
Product degradation is not supposed to happen
There is a lack of consistency from the vendor. . . .
ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS
In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:
The respondent’s contract is missing the following information:
The contractor’s ROC number
The date the parties entered into the contract
The contract is dated; however the contract is not signed.
Without dated signatures, it is not known what date the parties entered into the contract.
An estimated date of completion
Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar
Contact information for the registrar
A signature of the property owner
A signature of the contractor. . . .
Display of License
Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s documents do not include the respondent’s ROC number. . . .
6. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Smith verified that
Respondent performed no work and that Respondent’s license was suspended due to inactivity. Therefore, Investigator Smith forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent on March 26, 2026, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1124(B); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2026. The hearing was held via Google Meet on June 16, 2026.
Investigator Smith testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive. Namely, the product was flaking in several places, with at least one bubble approximately 12-15 inches in diameter. Overall, he stated there was lack of consistency in the finish. Investigator Smith also added that at the jobsite inspection, Respondent acknowledged the issues.
When asked if Investigator Smith had evidence that Respondent’s installation techniques were improper or that the flaking was caused because of product failure, Investigator Smith replied that, although he did not witness the installation, the coating material should not have “delaminated from surface.” As such, Investigator Smith testified that product failure often results from poor preparation and in his view, it was indicative of poor workmanship.
Complainant agreed with Investigator Smith’s testimony. She added that Respondent’s workmanship was not synonymous with “ill-intent”, rather it was the installation that failed. Complainant testified that product discoloration was also not an issue and that her main concern was the cost of re-doing the entire deck that Respondent had installed less than a year ago. She asserted it was her belief that Respondent simply did not have enough experience installing such a product.
Mr. Hamblen testified that Complainant had demonstrated patience with the ongoing issues. He argued that there were challenges with the product itself; however, the manufacturer had assured Respondent the product was good to go. Mr. Hamblen added that its members received proper training and had the manufacturer confirm the product was properly installed. In addition, he claimed the product was installed in other projects with no issues.
Mr. Hamblen testified that challenges with the product had resulted in Respondent incurring huge losses and eventually going out of business. He insisted that Respondent “did not have anything left” or else it would have reached a settlement with Complainant. Mr. Hamblen added that Respondent did not perform any work after the Written Directive was issued because it had “no confidence in the product” and because its license was suspended.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 16, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 351175 was no longer accessible/listed on the Registrar’s website.
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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
The evidence established that Respondent’s documents failed to include Respondent’s ROC number as set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1124(B). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. 351175 for one day.
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, July 6, 2026.
/s/ Fahd Nazir
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
John Smith
[email redacted]
Diane Milford
[email redacted]
Baja Surfaces LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff