ALJDEC - Licensing

2026A-02187-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Standard Plumbing Supply,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Rapid Response Disaster Services LLC,

ROC License No. 362269,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2026A-02187-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 18, 2026 at 10:30 AM.

APPEARANCES: Kimberly Gonzalez appeared on behalf of Standard Plumbing Supply (“Complainant”). No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Rapid Response Disaster Services LLC (“Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the referring agency’s attached administrative file, and May 13, 2026, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s license history as shown on the Registrar’s public website. On November 12, 2025, the Registrar issued License No. 362269 for General Dual KB-2 Residential and Small Commercial contracting to Respondent. The license is active and renewed through November 30, 2027. Christopher Dallas Nevill is listed on the license as the Qualifying Party, Owner, and Manager. Emily Suzanne Nevill is also listed on the license as a Manager. The address of record for the license is 9747 E. Resistance Ave. Mesa, Arizona 85212. Respondent has an active $14,000.00 surety bond for the license issued through Western Surety Company, effective November 12, 2025. The license has not been previously disciplined by the Registrar or had any prior complaints resolved or otherwise settled on the license. There is, however, one (1) open complaint against the license which is presumed to be related to the case at bar.

On or about February 25, 2026, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging nonpayment of materials against Respondent. Specifically, Complainant alleged that Respondent had failed to remit timely payment(s) on thirty-four (34) invoices issued between May 08, 2025, and February 14, 2026, and owed Complainant an outstanding balance of $4,283.76 as a result. Complainant attached an Aged Trial Balance sheet and credit application to the complaint to substantiate its allegation(s) of nonpayment against Respondent. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2026-02187 and assigned the case to Meridith Bell in their legal department for investigation.

On March 24, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of No Pay Complaint letter to Respondent providing notice of Complainant’s complaint, and informed Respondent that it was free to raise any affirmative defense(s) or provide additional information by March 31, 2026. Respondent did not provide a response.

On April 10, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent was notified that a failure to provide an Answer by April 25, 2026, would be deemed as an admission of Respondent’s commission of the act(s) charged in the underlying complaint, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1155(B), and could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.

On or about April 23, 2026, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Mr. Nevill denied authorizing a credit application with Complainant, and further denied signing the application on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Nevill provided a photocopy of his driver’s license.

On May 01, 2026, this matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on June 18, 2026. Per the May 08, 2026, Notice of Hearing the issue(s) to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following charge(s) alleged in the Citation:

Charge 1: A violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Hearing Evidence

Kimberly Gonzalez testified on behalf of Complainant. Although afforded a brief ten (10) minute grade period there was no appearance by or on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Complainant is a wholesale retailer of construction equipment and tool rental based in Southern California with branches across Arizona.

Respondent is a restoration contractor operating locally.

On December 08, 2021, Mr. Nevill submitted a credit application to Complainant on behalf of Respondent, which was granted. Invoices were issued by Complainant to Respondent for rentals as follows:

Between May 08, 2025, and February 14, 2026, Respondent charged a total of $4,283.76 over the course of thirty-four (34) credit transactions. Respondent’s account was credited $7.41.

Between August 06, 2025, and February 12, 2026, Complainant attempted to collect debts from Respondent that were between thirty (30) and ninety (90) days late. During a number of those attempts Complainant was able to reach Mr. Nevill and two (2) other employees whereby Respondent avowed payments were inbound, though never received.

Despite multiple attempts to collect the aforementioned balance due from Respondent, Complainant was unsuccessful.

Additional Evidence

Ms. Gonzalez testified that balance sheets were issued to Respondent on the 25th of every month, and that none were returned as undeliverable. Balance due 30 days after balance sheets were issued. Ms. Gonzalez also testified that Mr. Nevill told her that Respondent would pay the total outstanding balance at the end of February 2026, but no monies were ever received.

Per Ms. Gonzalez, the first time Respondent alleged the credit application and/or balance owed was due to fraud was when she was reviewing Respondent’s Answer to the Citation. Ms. Gonzalez does not believe the assertion is accurate, particularly where the application lists Respondent’s DBA and its references and Experian FICO were checked prior to approval.

Closing Arguments

In closing, Complainant argued that it had sustained its burden of proof and that restitution was warranted from the licensee.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because OAH mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from OAH as well.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1129.02(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[p]erformance by a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract entitles the subcontractor to payment from the party with whom the subcontractor contracts.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) holds, in pertinent part, that among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1156.01 states, in pertinent part, that after a hearing an Administrative Law Judge may provide restitution to any person who is injured by an action of a licensee.

In the case at bar, the Tribunal is tasked with determining how much money Complainant is owed by Respondent, if any, and if so, whether said debt(s) constitute a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) for which Respondent’s license should be lawfully disciplined by the Registrar.

The material facts in this case are clear.

Upon review of the record, the credible and relevant evidence establishes that Complainant has sustained its burden of proof by the requisite evidentiary standard. It is undisputed that Respondent applied and was approved for a line of credit by Complainant, that Respondent racked up $4,283.76 in charges between May 08, 2025, and February 14, 2026, that Complainant issued monthly statements and balance sheets to Respondent in attempts to collect the underlying debt owed, and that Respondent admittedly failed to timely remit payments in part or in full.

Therefore, the only remaining issue is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to tender payment in full to Complainant on the monies owed. This is an affirmative defense that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act to any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is also a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.

Because Complainant established Respondent’s violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant also established cause for the Registrar to discipline License No. 362269.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Rapid Response Disaster Services LLC, ROC License No. 362269, shall be suspended for its violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) until Respondent provides the Registrar with proof that $4,283.76 has been tendered to Complainant in certified funds as restitution in accordance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1156.01.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that after the Registrar has received Respondent’s proof of payment to Complainant, Complaint No. 2026-02187 be closed.

NOTICE

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 07, 2026.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Standard Plumbing Supply, Complainant

c/o Kimberly Gonzalez, Agent

4695 N. Ave.

Oceanside, CA 92056

[email redacted]

Rapid Response Disaster Services LLC, Respondent

c/o Christopher Dallas Nevill, Agent

9747 E. Resistance Ave.

Mesa, AZ 85212

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff