ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-00697-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Grace Construction & Remodeling, LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Madero Plumbing, LLC
License No. ROC 328720,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2026A-00697-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 11, 2026
APPEARANCES: Fernan Salazer and Allyse Gruenwald appeared on behalf of Complainant Grace Construction & Remodeling, LLC. Respondent Madero Plumbing, LLC failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Smith appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Madero Plumbing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 328720, a Class CR-37 Plumbing license, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about October 13, 2025, Grace Construction and Remodeling, LLC (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install the concrete foundation and plumbing for a new home build located at 5940 E. Camino Desierto, in Tucson, Arizona. The contract price was $11,000.00. Complainant has paid Respondent $5,500.00.
On or about January 20, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment of the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator John Smith. On February 12, 2026, Investigator Smith conducted a Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Smith’s Jobsite Inspection Notes state the following in pertinent part:
General Notes:
• The property is owned by Salazar Investments PSP, LLC.
• The complainant is the Statutory Agent of Salazar Investments PSP, LLC.
• The complainant is the also the Qualifying Party of Grace Construction & Remodeling LLC, a licensed contractor, ROC 319060.
• The contract documents are in the name of “Grace Construction”, and payments are made payable from Grace Construction.
• The complainant was acting in the capacity of a general contractor when hiring the respondent.
• The respondent’s license was revoked 1/2/2026
• Due to the revoked license, this complaint is being forwarded to Legal without the issuance of a Directive.
. . . .
Complaint Item 1 (Complaint item): “Abandoned work: several attempts to contact Victor via phone calls/texts to complete his work.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• As stated on the submitted complaint form, work stopped 11/10/2025.
Contractual scope of work (Plumbing)
• Underground plumbing **material will be pvc piping** for 2.5 restrooms, kitchen, laundry/laundry sink, water softener
• Underground, top out, trim installation only. Contractor is responsible for providing all trim to be installed by plumber.
. . . .
Conditions on site
• The only work performed by the respondent is a water supply line from the meter, part way onto the property.
o This line is not complete.
o The backfilling is not complete.
• No other contractual work has been started.
. . . .
Complaint Item 2 (Complaint item): “For the work that was done, he failed to pay his workers and the equipment rental, those employees and tool rental company want us to pay them directly. The rental company is owed $3,500 and is wanting to put a lien on our property if we don't pay.”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a specific workmanship issue, or a specific violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
Complaint Item 3 (Allegation): “Underground sewer not complete Water line supply lines to the house No concrete complete”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
• As stated on the submitted complaint form, work stopped 11/10/2025.
Contractual scope of work (Plumbing)
• Underground plumbing **material will be pvc piping** for 2.5 restrooms, kitchen, laundry/laundry sink, water softener
• Underground, top out, trim installation only. Contractor is responsible for providing all trim to be installed by plumber.
. . . .
Conditions on site
• The only work performed by the respondent is a water supply line from the meter, part way onto the property.
o This line is not complete.
o The backfilling is not complete.
• No other contractual work has been started.
Beyond scope of License
Investigator’s Observations: The contractual scope of work includes: “Forming, grading, and pouring 2610sq ft of pad”
The respondent has one ROC contractor license, a CR-37 Plumbing license.
Pouring a concrete pad / house foundation, is not included the scope of work allowed under the CR-37 Plumbing License.
Pouring the concrete pad / house foundation, is not incidental and supplemental to the plumbing project.
On or about February 12, 2026, Investigator Smith forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).
Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.
On the date and at the time set for hearing, Fernan Salazer and Allyse Gruenwald appeared on behalf of Complainant. Investigator Smith appeared as a witness. Respondent failed to appear. Respondent was aware of the pending hearing given that Respondent requested a continuance of the initially scheduled hearing date. Respondent’s request to continue was granted on April 24, 2026. Respondent was advised of the continued hearing date and time via an Order Granting Continuance and Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. The Order advised the parties of the continued hearing date and time of June 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., and provided the Google Meet information to appear by video or phone. The Order was sent to all of the email addresses of record and utilized by Respondent throughout the course of these proceedings: [email redacted], [email redacted], [email redacted]. Respondent did not request a further continuance and did not notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of any cause for the absence or delay. The hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Investigator Smith testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Smith testified that Respondent contracted beyond the scope of its license when it performed foundation work, as Respondent was only licensed to perform plumbing work. The only work performed by Respondent was the installation of a water supply line from the meter, part way onto the property, and the line is not complete. Investigator Smith did not issue a Written Directive to Respondent because Respondent’s license was revoked.
Mr. Salazar agreed with Investigator Smith’s testimony, and also testified that he sent a “cure notice” to Respondent that Respondent “ignored.” Mr. Salazar testified that he attempted to contact Respondent multiple times with no response.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 29, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 328720 was first issued on May 4, 2020, and was revoked effective January 2, 2026. Such prior License record also reflects that there are two open complaints, including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and one complaint resulting in discipline 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.”
The evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project without legal excuse. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
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 professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established that Respondent contracted to perform foundation work which is work beyond the scope of its Class CR-37 Plumbing License. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Number 328720.
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 29, 2026.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
John Smith
[email redacted]
Madero Plumbing, LLC
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Grace Construction & Remodeling, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff