ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-00469-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jovita Cortes Ozaeta,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
REDROCK CONSTRUCTIONS LLC
License No. ROC 347183,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2026A-00469-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 28, 2026 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Complainant Jovita Cortes Ozaeta appeared on her own behalf with witness Juan Juarez. Dimitri Gilles appeared on behalf of Respondent Redrock Constructions, LLC with witness Eddie Reyes and observer Chuck Montgomery. Investigator Todd Anderson appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Spanish Interpreter Mark Canas with Language Connection.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“ROC Packet”). Complainant Exhibit Packet. Respondent Exhibit Packet.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Redrock Constructions, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 347183 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”).
On or about May 3, 2025, Jovita Cortes Ozaeta (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Coli Studios, Incorporated for, among other things, a 610 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”). The contract was signed by Coli Studios representative Yessica Moreno.
Complainant found Coli Studios through social media. Coli Studios employees Ms. Moreno, Jessica Pastor, Ramiro Guzman, and Erika Martinez visited Complainant and some came to her residence located in Phoenix, Arizona and discussed the project.
On August 7, 2024, Coli Studios and Mr. Gilles on behalf of Respondent entered into an agreement, in pertinent part, stated the following:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Coli is in the business of marketing and promoting the sale of ADUs in Arizona.
WHEREAS, [Respondent] is a licensed contractor in good standing and agrees to attach his license to Coli Studios, Inc., so that Coli may perform duties under the KB-1 Dual Building Contractor’s license designation and act as a general contractor allowed to build ADUs in Arizona.
NOW, Therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises to set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
Attachment of License
[Respondent] agrees to attach his General ROC 347183 to license to Coli Studios, Inc., allowing Coli to operate under the KB-1 Dual Building Contractor designation.
This attachment authorizes Coli to perform all duties and responsibilities as permitted under the KB-1 Dual Building Contractor license, including but not limited to, planning, designing, constructing, and managing ADU projects throughout Arizona.
Issuance of Non-Voting Shares
2.1 Coli agrees to issue [Respondent] non-voting shares equal to 25% of Coli’s outstanding shares at the time this Agreement becomes effective.
2.2. These shares grant [Respondent] an economic interest in Coli, but do not provide any voting rights or authority in the management or operations of Coli.
2.3 The issuance of shares will be documented and reflected in Coli’s corporate records within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement.
Compensation
4.1 Coli agrees to pay [Respondent] 5% of the net profits from each construction project in which [Respondent] is actively involved.
4.2 Active involvement is defined as any substantial contribution to the planning, execution, management, or supervision of a construction project.
4.3 Payments shall be made on a trimestral basis, within thirty (30) days after the end of each quarter, based on the net profits calculated for that period.
4.4 Coli shall provide [Respondent] with a detailed statement of net profits for each project along with each payment.
On August 19, 2024, Coli Studios was added to Respondent’s license as a parent entity, in a deal for Dimitri Gilles, Respondent Qualifying Party, to be a 25% stockholder in Coli Studios. The purpose of the partnership was to work as partners to build ADUs.
On October 15, 2024, Coli Studios added Mr. Gilles as a shareholder with the Arizona Corporation Commission.
On or about November 27, 2024, Mr. Gilles spoke with the Registrar about removing Coli Studios from Respondent’s license. Mr. Gilles was not receiving communications from Coli Studios and no longer wanted to partner with them.
Coli Studios QuickBooks records show that from August 7, 2024 through May 2, 2025, Coli Studios paid out monies to Staff Construction Management, LLC which is a residential remodelers business managed by Mr. Gilles and the LLC was formed on April 29, 2022. The payments ranged from $1,000.00 to $47,600.00.
On May 2, 2025, Mr. Gilles sent a test message to Ms. Moreno that read, as follows:
Mr. Gilles: Yessica ... good morning ... I was supposed to have $6,000 deposited yesterday but I did not see it in the account ... can you send it to me this morning...
Ms. Moreno: Ey Dimitri! I have send you know [sic] the money.
Mr. Gilles: Thank you Yessica.
On or about May 3, 2025, Complainant met with the Coli Studios team and signed off on the ADU contract. The contract was in the total amount of $140,000.00 and Complainant paid $70,000.00. At the top of the contract pages, displayed was License No. ROC 347183, Respondent’s ROC License number. Complainant issued a Cashier’s Check payable to Coli Studios in the amount of $70,000.00 on April 30, 2025, which was accepted and signed by Ms. Moreno on May 3, 2025.
On June 8, 2025, Mr. Gilles sent a text message to Ms. Moreno that read, as follows:
Mr. Gilles: Hi Yessica, Do I have any money coming to me this month? My account right now is $36.
On June 10, 2025, Mr. Gilles sent a bank account screenshot to Ms. Moreno that showed a negative balance of -$367.44. Mr. Gilles then texted, “To use my license, I was promised I would be OK. I would be taking [sic] care of.”
On or about September 17, 2025, Mr. Gilles realized that there was a different disassociation date on the Registrar website than he thought. Mr. Gilles spoke to the Registrar believing the dissociation with Coli Studios was effective in November 2024. Mr. Gilles submitted a Personnel Change Form to the Registrar removing Coli Studios from Respondent’s license with the Registrar putting the official disassociation date as September 18, 2025.
On September 18, 2025, Coli Studios removed Mr. Gilles as a shareholder.
On November 24, 2025, Coli Studios was issued a license with the Registrar.
On or about January 13, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson.
On January 21, 2026, Investigator Anderson sent a jobsite inspection notification to Complainant and Respondent.
On February 11, 2026, Investigator Anderson conducted a jobsite inspection with no one from Coli Studios present. At the inspection, was the first time Mr. Gilles met Complainant.
On the same day, February 11, 2026, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive 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 February 26, 2026.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: Contractor failed to obtain required City of Phoenix building permits. Permit application submitted June 18, 2025 was never corrected or resubmitted. No approved permits in place to allow construction to begin. Contractor abandoned permit process after city requested revisions. No construction work has commenced at the project site. No labor or materials provided despite $70,000 payment. Contractor failed to prosecute work with reasonable diligence. Project abandoned after receiving payment. Contractor retained payment without performing contracted work. Contractor failed to supervise or manage the construction project. Contractor failed to comply with contract requirement to obtain permits. Contractor failed to meet December 10, 2025 timeline for completion.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified
Contract Date: May 3rd, 2025
Total Contract Amount: $140,000
Total Amount Paid to the Contractor: $70,000
Scope of work to be completed: Construction of a new Casita (ADU) in the backyard of the Main Residence.
Conditions on site during the February 11th 2026 Jobsite Inspection:
• No work had been started on the new Casita (ADU) to be located in the backyard of the residence.
• No building materials had been brought to the Jobsite.
• No approved permits had been obtained.
Contractor shall complete the construction of the new Casita (ADU) per contract and in accordance with all applicable building codes and professional industry standards. Contractor shall also obtain all necessary permits before any work can be started.
Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3): Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b). A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Anderson was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On March 2, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Anderson testified that ultimately Respondent was responsible in this matter because its association with Coli Studios went from August 19, 2024 to September 18, 2025. Investigator Anderson further testified that he was not aware if Respondent received or did not receive monies from Coli Studios and was unaware that the first time Mr. Gilles met Complainant was at the job site inspection.
Juan Juarez, Complainant’s son, testified that someone must be responsible for this matter. Mr. Juarez admitted that his mother only met with Coli Studios employees prior to the job site inspection and she was not aware of Mr. Gilles. Mr. Juarez explained that at the job site inspection, Mr. Gilles told them that he would try to help but that Coli “took my license” and “I am going to talk to Coli to get the money back.” Mr. Juarez filed a public records request and provided all the documents received and admitted as Complainant Exhibit Packet.
Mr. Gilles testified that he took a screenshot from the ROC website that showed he did dissociate from Coli Studios on November 27, 2024. The Administrative Law Judge asked Mr. Gilles if that screenshot was fraudulent and he responded that it was not. Investigator Anderson testified that there was a historical record on the ROC website that showed that Respondent’s disassociation date from Coli Studios, named as “Parent Entity,” was on September 18, 2025. Mr. Gilles testified that he had to get law enforcement involved once he realized fraud was being committed under Respondent’s license. The City of Phoenix Police Department report number is 26-00236969. Mr. Gilles testified that he started his own Backyard Living ADU company sometime at the beginning of 2025. Mr. Gilles believed that Coli Studios “hijacked” his license.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 28, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 347183 was first issued on August 18, 2023, and was active. Such prior License record also reflected that there were seven open complaints. The Registrar’s website details under Qualifying Party & Personnel as such, “The Qualifying Party listed below is associated with this license. All other persons named, if any, are associated with the company. They are not all necessarily associated with this license.”
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 “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(8) defines “Qualifying Party,” which means a person who is responsible for a licensee’s actions and conduct performed under the license who either (a) has an ownership interest in the license [or] (b) is regularly employed by the licensee.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1127(B) provides while engaged as the qualifying party for a license, the qualifying party is responsible for any violation of this chapter by the licensee for licensure regulatory purposes under this chapter.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1127.01(A) provides if a person who qualified for a license ceases to be connected with the licensee, both the licensee and the qualifying party shall notify the registrar in writing within fifteen days after the dissociation.
This Administrative Law Judge decided a case in docket number 2025A-11188 which involved Respondent, Coli Studios, and a different Complainant. The documentation from the public record request retrieved by Mr. Juarez was not available for that matter and much more substantial evidence was submitted in this case in regards to the relationship between Respondent and Coli Studios. The record clearly established that Respondent and Coli Studios entered into a contractual agreement regarding use of Respondent’s license and signed off on paperwork with the Registrar to include Coli Studios as a “licensee” for all intent and purpose. Mr. Gilles testified that he entered into this contract because he was going to be “set for life” with all of the ADU work that would come his way. In addition, the evidence established that Mr. Gilles was receiving steady payments from Coli Studios through May 2025, through his company, Staff Construction Management, LLC. Mr. Gilles knowingly contracted with Coli Studios, was receiving payments from them, and although Complainant had never met Mr. Gilles prior to the jobsite inspection, Respondent was behind the scenes and bears responsibility as the licensed contractor. The official documents and Registrar website show that dissociation did not occur until September 18, 2025, in addition the contractual agreement between Coli Studios and Respondent terminated around the same time.
Hence, the evidence established that Coli Studios submitted a bid for Complainant’s project under Respondent’s license, per its contractual agreement. However, no actual work was performed in regards to Complainant’s project. Mr. Juarez credibly testified that at the jobsite inspection, Mr. Gilles informed him that he would try to help them out and never called them back. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108.
In addition, 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. 347183 for a period of ten days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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, May 20, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
REDROCK CONSTRUCTIONS LLC
10267 S Hopi Ln
Goodyear, AZ 85338
[email redacted]
Jovita Cortes Ozaeta
2537 E Tamarisk Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85040
[email redacted]
Todd Anderson
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff