ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-01138-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Quite Builders Inc.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
C & D Construction LLC
License No. ROC 337475,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2026A-01138-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 9, 2026 at 9:00am and June 30, 2026 at 3:00pm
APPEARANCES: Jasmine Giardina appeared on behalf of Complainant Quite Builders, Incorporated. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
C & D Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 337475, first issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on April 5, 2022.
On or about January 29, 2026, Quite Builders, Incorporated (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $14,844.15 for stucco and stonework.
Complainant contracted with Respondent to perform stucco and stonework at a residential home in Gold Canyon, Arizona. The total amount of the contract was $43,688.31 and Respondent paid a deposit in the amount of $21,844.15. The next payment Respondent made was approximately two to three months later in the amount of $7,000.00.
Complainant continued to invoice Respondent for the remaining balance which went unpaid. The parties attempted an informal settlement conference; however, Respondent did not live up to any agreement.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. On March 18, 2026, the Registrar then issued a Citation for alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The Citation requested that Respondent file a written answer by April 2, 2026. Respondent filed its answer by email on April 2, 2026, stating in pertinent part, “Respondent has not received sufficient payment for the specific project at issue from the project owner. As a result, Respondent currently lacks the financial capacity to satisfy the outstanding balance. This circumstance is directly related to the nonpayment on the underlying project and is not due to any intent to withhold payment. [Respondent] is in the process of winding down operations due to financial hardship. Despite these circumstances, Respondent remains willing to work in good faith toward resolving this matter and satisfying the obligation as circumstances allow.”
On or about April 22, 2026, the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On May 1, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 9:00am on June 9, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
On May 6, 2026, an order was emailed from the OAH to the parties which advised them on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on June 9, 2026 at 9:00am.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
On June 9, 2026, around 9:11am, Respondent sent this message to OAH which stated, “Hello I joined the call and waited a few minutes, but no one was there. Please let me know if this can be rescheduled? Thank you.”
On June 15, 2026, an order was emailed from the OAH to the parties which advised them on how to connect to the further hearing via Google Meet. The further hearing was held via Google Meet on June 30, 2026 at 3:00pm. Respondent did not appear for the hearing, although, the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes as a grace period.
Hearing Evidence
Jasmine Giardina, Vice President of Complainant business, testified on behalf of Complainant business. Administrative notice was taken of the Registrar’s packet which includes the Notice of Hearing.
Ms. Giardina testified that the residential home where the project was located, was finished, went on the market, and was sold. Ms. Giardina testified that Respondent did have the money to pay the remaining balance and told her they could make progress payments but never did.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing and of the orders from the OAH.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owed Complainant more than $750.00 for materials/services provided in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor.
In this case, the evidence established that Respondent owed a total amount of $14,844.15 for services rendered.
Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed despite what was stated in its written Answer.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $14,844.15 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Hence, Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $14,844.15. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing,
It is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 337475 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $14,844.15 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $14,844.15 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2026A-01138.
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, July 12, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Quite Builders Inc.
1869 W 6th St
Mesa, AZ 85201
[email redacted]
C & D Construction LLC
6724 E Albany St
MESA, AZ 85205
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff