ALJDEC - Licensing

2026A-02466-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

David Lynn,

COMPLAINANT

JLA Builders & Renovators LLC

License No. ROC 357433,

RESPONDENT

No. 2026A-02466-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 23, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator John Smith on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant David Lynn on his own behalf. Jessy Garcia, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet (Packet) submitted by Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibit 1 admitted. Respondent Exhibits A through E admitted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

JLA Builders & Renovators LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. ROC 357433 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC).

On or about January 30, 2026, David Lynn (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for residential remodel.

On or about March 4, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator John Smith, who scheduled a jobsite inspection for March 31, 2026. Investigator Smith also issued Warning Letters to Respondent for prima facie violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(14) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A).

After a jobsite inspection, at which Responded was not present, Investigator Smith issued a Written Directive (Directive) on March 31, 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 April 16, 2026. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 2 (Allegation): “At the end of one month we now have 5 cracks that are growing in width and length with 2 cracks over 6 feet in length.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are areas of cracks. One crack extends the full width of the patio concrete. Areas of cracks exceed the acceptable tolerance of 3/32 inch. Cracking includes vertical displacement creating a non-flat surface. Vertical displacement exceeds 3/16 inch in a 4 foot span. The concrete was poured/placed without expansion joint material at the adjoining concrete. The lack of expansion material, and vertical displacement of the new concrete, is causing the pre-existing house foundation, and pre-existing post footers to crack as well. As stated in the Arizona Workmanship Standards, the affected areas are to be replaced. . . .

Complaint Item 3 (Allegation): “There are also numerous blotches and stains that look horrible.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The concrete has a coating, or overlay material, applied to the surface.

There are numerous areas of stains, poorly matched patches, and areas of excessive color variation, which are all considered to be unsightly. . . .

Complaint Item 5 (Allegation): “Concrete has 3 major cracks (2 more than four feet long)”

Complaint Item 6 (Allegation): “and areas of discoloration.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The concrete has a coating, or overlay material, applied to the surface. There are numerous areas of stains, poorly matched patches, and areas of excessive color variation, which are all considered to be unsightly. . . .

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:

Elements of a Contract

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s contract is missing the following information:

The contractor’s business address

An estimated date of completion

The contract does specify “Work is expected to be completed within approximately (3) working days, weather permitting.” However; there is no indication of when work will being.

Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar

Contact information for the registrar. . .

Wrong name

Investigator’s Observations:

The respondent’s registered business name is:

“JLA Builders & Renovators LLC”

The respondent’s document(s) are displaying their company name as:

“JLA Builders & Renovators LLC DBA Tucson Concreters”. . .

On April 13, 2026, Respondent emailed Investigator Smith. The email, in pertinent part, stated as follows:

I want to move forward and take care of this the right way. . . . Based on what I saw on site, this is something that can be properly repaired and corrected without having to remove and replace the entire patio. . . . My plan is to grind out and repair the cracks, stich them where needed to prevent further movement, remove the existing sealer that didn’t come out right, and then resurface the patio so it has a clean, uniform finish again. . . .

On April 15, 2026, Respondent emailed Investigator Smith. The email, in pertinent part, stated as follows:

I understand you’d like a more detailed plan—no problem.

Here’s how I will be addressing the patio:

I will create proper separation between the patio and the house

. . .

All visible cracks will be opened and properly cleaned. Where needed, I will reinforced (stitch) the cracks and repair them. . .

The existing sealer that did not cure or finish properly will be ground off. . .

Let me know if you’re good with this so we can schedule a day next week to get started.

After the deadline in the Directive expired without Respondent completing the repairs or requesting an extension, Investigator Smith forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent on April 23, 2026, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(14); 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. The hearing was held via Google Meet on June 23, 2026.

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Smith testified consistently with the findings contained in the Directive. Regarding Complaint Items 5 and 6, he pointed out they were merely duplicates of Complaint Items 2 and 3, respectively. He testified that the cracks exceeded the acceptable tolerance of 3/32 inch, and to meet the Arizona Workmanship Standards, Respondent was to replace the affected areas. Investigator Smith confirmed that Respondent emailed him at least twice during the directive period but only offered to repair the cracks. And as such, this was not an acceptable repair.

Mr. Garcia testified that he performed the work in good faith and presented his own narrative, challenging the Directive instructions. Namely, he contended that the patio cracks were repairable and that he disagreed with Investigator Smith regarding the appropriate corrective action required. Overall, Mr. Garcia testified that he took licensing matters very seriously and did not abandon the project and offered to repair – rather than replace – the affected areas.

Mr. Garcia acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the work. For example, some elements of the written contract were missing but he contended it was a “harmless” error. Regarding Respondent’s document(s) displaying a different business name, he said it was for “marketing purposes only.” Mr. Garcia alleged that Complainant knew who he was and that Respondent never intended to hide its identity.

Mr. Lynn agreed with Investigator Smith’s testimony overall. However, he added that the cracks had gotten worse over time. He testified that Respondent offered to repair the cracks, but he agreed with Investigator Smith’s assessment that replacement was the appropriate corrective required of Respondent.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 13, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No.357433 was first issued on February 28, 2025, and is active. Such prior License record also reflected that there was one open complaint and one prior 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.

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’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The evidence established that Respondent’s document(s) displayed the company name other than as set forth on the license. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(14).

The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work 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.357433 for one day.

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.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, July 13, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Smith

[email redacted]

David Lynn

[email redacted]

JLA Builders & Renovators LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff