ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-01937-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Winsupply of West Phoenix,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Charity Plumbing LLC
License No. ROC 311553,
RESPONDENT
No. 2026A-01937-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 28, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Allen White
Respondent: No Appearance
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Charity Plumbing LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 311553 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 10, 2017.
On or about September 16, 2022, Winsupply of West Phoenix (Complainant) entered into a contract to extend credit to Respondent for purchase of wholesale plumbing trade supplies.
On or about February 11, 2026, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay multiple invoices issued between March 2025 and November 2025, amounting to $56,522.61.
On March 12, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10). Respondent timely submitted an Answer on March 27, 2026, acknowledging the balance owed, asserted that Respondent had experienced severe financial hardship, and maintained that despite efforts to pay the balance, it was forced to close its business.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on April 13, 2026, setting the hearing for May 28, 2026.
The hearing was held on May 28, 2026.
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.
The Notice of Hearing was mailed to Respondent’s physical and email addresses of record. It was noted that Respondent’s physical address of record matched the address Respondent provided on the contract and the email address of record matched the address from which Respondent filed its Answer. Therefore, Notice was deemed to have been adequately provided and received.
Allen White testified on behalf of Complainant as to, and in support of, the facts of the Complaint and the documentation filed therewith. Specifically, Mr. White testified that the principal amount of $56,522.61, claimed in the Complaint remained due and owing. He testified that each invoice number and corresponding detail itemized on the Complaint and the two additional attached sheets represented all invoices at issue and together amounted to $56,522.61.
The evidence included copies of each outstanding invoice as well as an email correspondence thread, dated June 5, 2025, through December 11, 2025, between the parties specifically addressing the invoices and balanced owed. Respondent acknowledged the outstanding balance and accepted responsibility for payment, throughout the thread, including the following:
On June 5, 2025, Respondent wrote, “I will pay online this week $10,000.00. We will make payments throughout June to get that knocked down.”
On June 25, 2025, Respondent wrote, “We had an agreement with [Complainant employee] to pay a little over 50 grand by the end of the month.”
On July 24, 2025, Respondent wrote, “[W]e’re fully aware that our balance with [Complainant] has reached $76,000.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
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.”
The evidence on record may be given more or less weight toward establishing a preponderance depending on the indicia of credibility associated with that evidence and its source.
A.R.S. § 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.
In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.
The issue in this matter is whether payment, as claimed by Complainant, was due and owing by Respondent. A licensee is required to pay for materials when due, unless the licensee proves the lack of capacity to pay and sufficient payment was not received from the particular project for which the materials were rendered.
In the instant matter, Mr. White established that Complainant and Respondent had a long-standing working relationship as evidenced by the credit contract signed in September 2022. Additionally, in its Answer, Respondent acknowledged its responsibility to pay the balance owed and did not dispute the claimed amount.
Therefore, Complainant established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
Based on Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 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. 311553 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish it has paid Complainant $56,522.61 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $56,522.61 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2026-01937.
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 17, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Winsupply of West Phoenix
[email redacted]
Charity Plumbing LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff