ALJDEC - Licensing

2026A-00637-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Heather Hollister,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Basurto General Contractor Inc.,

License No. ROC 302542,

RESPONDENT

No. 2026A-00637-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 10, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator John Peru on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Heather Hollister on behalf of herself. Jorge Basurto, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent Basurto General Contractor Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet submitted by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Basurto General Contractor Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 302542 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 3, 2025, Heather Hollister (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for restoration work.

On or about January 18, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru. After a jobsite inspection on March 2, 2026, at which Respondent was not present, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive (Directive) dated March 12, 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 Monday, March 30, 2026. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 1 - Knobs are missing.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed the knobs missing from the Double Oven pantry cabinet. . . .

Complaint Item: 2 - Cabinets are badly damaged.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed damage on the cabinet doors located at the Double Oven Pantry, and additional cabinetry left in the garage, not yet installed. . . .

Complaint Item: 3 - Kitchen floor is damaged.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed damage on the Travertine Kitchen Floor. The damage indicates dragging of the dishwasher to the garage, during the demo phase. . . .

Complaint Item: 4 - Baseboards have visible nail holes with only one coat of paint applied.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed unfilled/unpainted baseboards throughout the living room. Addtionally, I observed a poor cut/returned base board located near the fireplace. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 - Cabinetry installation and finish work not complete.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed incompleted work. Base Cabinets around the sink area were not installed. The Toe-kick, and crown molding was not complete. . . .

Complaint Item: 6 - No clean up occurred.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed incomplete work. . . .

Complaint Item: 7 - Plumbing work not complete.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed incomplete work. During the inspection, I noted a leak at the rinse side(right side sink bowl) at the down pipe/ sink connection. The complainant stated that they hooked up the plumbing temporarily for use of the kitchen sink. The respondent will still have to complete the cabinetry around the sink, and reconnect the plumbing. The connection leak is noted as a pre-exsisting condition, prior to completion of compliance. . . .

Complaint Item: 8 - Painting was not completed in the living room. Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed incomplete work. . . .

Complaint Item: 9 - Toe kick and crown molding not installed. Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed incomplete work. The Toe-kick, and crown moulding was not complete. . . .

Following the issuance of the Directive, Respondent did not comply with the Directive. After the compliance deadline expired, Investigator Peru forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On April 3, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); 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. A hearing was held via Google Meet on June 10, 2026.

Investigator Peru testified consistently with the findings contained in the Directive. He testified that the cabinets had “newer gouges” and scratches, and there were marring marks on the travertine floors, as if “the dishwasher was dragged on an unprotected floor.” Investigator Peru also testified that a “significant” amount of finishing work was left to be completed and Respondent failed to do a final clean up.

Notwithstanding the above, Investigator Peru noted as to Complaint Item 7 that the plumbing was connected temporarily but it appeared it was a larger issue due to a pre-existing condition.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Peru’s testimony. She added that most of the damage verified during the jobsite inspection was a direct result of Respondent’s actions.

Mr. Basurto testified to taking pictures of the jobsite prior to commencing the project and that Respondent did not cause the damage; however, Respondent did not submit the pictures as evidence for review by this Tribunal. Mr. Basurto also added that Complainant wanted to expand the scope of the project and that Respondent was willing to finish the job it was contracted for but nothing more.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 10, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 302542 was first issued on January 22, 2016, and was suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint and one prior resolved/settled complaint against Respondent’s 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

In this case, even when assuming Complaint Item 7 to be due to pre-existing conditions, the weight of the evidence supports a finding in favor of Complainant. Overall, Respondent’s testimony was deficient, and no additional documentary evidence was presented to support its contentions.

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 was unable to complete the corrective work to the Registrar’s satisfaction 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. 302542 for a period of three 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 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 30, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Basurto General Contractor Inc.

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Heather Hollister

[email redacted]

John Peru

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff