ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-03286-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
ACRI LLC,
ROC License No. 358446,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2026A-03286-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 17, 2026 at 3:00 PM.
APPEARANCES: Lynne Welston appeared on behalf of Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (“Complainant”). Ronald Simmons Jr. appeared on behalf of ACRI 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 18, 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 April 22, 2025, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 358446 for Specialty Dual CR-8 Floor Covering contracting to Respondent. The license is active and renewed through April 30, 2027. Ronald M. Simmons Jr. is listed on the license as the Qualifying Party and Member. The address of record for the license is 2031 W. Lone Cactus Dr. Phoenix, Arizona 85027. Respondent has an active $6,750.00 surety bond for the license issued through RLI Insurance Company, effective April 22, 2025. The license has not been previously disciplined by the Registrar or had any prior complaints resolved or otherwise settled on the license. There are, however, two (2) open complaints against the license; one of which is presumed to be related to the case at bar.
On or about March 23, 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 twelve (12) invoices issued between June 30, 2025, and January 22, 2026, and owed Complainant an outstanding balance of $25,185.79 as a result. Complainant attached related invoices to the complaint to substantiate its allegation(s) of nonpayment against Respondent. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2026-03286 and assigned the case to Lauren Johnston in their legal department for investigation.
On March 27, 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. Respondent did not provide a response.
On April 17, 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 May 02, 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 May 01, 2026, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Mr. Simmons Jr. identified himself as the Chief Executive Officer for Respondent and admitted that the monies were owed to Complainant as alleged, and that he was working towards repaying the debt as soon as possible.
On May 08, 2026, this matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on June 17, 2026. Per the May 15, 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
Lynne Welton testified on behalf of Complainant. Ronald Simmons Jr. testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
Complainant is a construction equipment and tool rental company based in Southern California.
Respondent is a commercial contractor that specializes in flooring, wall systems, terrazzo, and epoxy.
On May 14, 2025, Respondent’s Accounts Receivable Manager, Eilee Festin, submitted a credit application to Respondent, which was granted. Invoices were issued by Complainant to Respondent for rentals as follows:
On June 30, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0001 for $637.90 to Respondent.
On July 02, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-001 for $1,836.02 to Respondent.
On August 11, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0001 for $2,090.41 to Respondent.
On August 13, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-001 for $870.68 to Respondent.
On August 14, 2026, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0001 for $3,587.35 to Respondent.
On August 29, 2026, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0001 for $3,677.61 to Respondent.
On October 15, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0001 for $3,349.68 to Respondent.
On November 12, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0002 for $2,615.20 to Respondent.
Billed for October 27.2025, through November 23, 2025, rental.
On December 05, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0001 for $958.42 to Respondent.
On December 10, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0003 for $2,615.20 to Respondent.
Billed for November 24, 2025, through December 22, 2025, rental.
On December 17, 2025, Complainant issued Invoice No. [number redacted]-0004 for $3,851.50 to Respondent.
On January 22, 2026, Complainant issued a credit memo to Respondent for -$904.18 via Invoice No. [number redacted]-0006.
Despite multiple attempts to collect the aforementioned balance due from Respondent, Complainant was unsuccessful.
Additional Evidence
Mr. Simmons Jr. testified that his company has “failed” and that although he anticipates filing for bankruptcy “soon” Respondent remains intent on repaying its debt to Complainant.
Closing Arguments
In closing, Respondent argued that that License No. 358446 should not be disciplined by the Registrar because he has suspended new business until he brought all outstanding account current, including Complainant’s. Respondent reiterated that it remained desirous of repaying its debt to Complainant, and beseeched the Tribunal not to revoke its construction license.
Complainant declined to provide a closing argument.
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.
“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 $25,185.79 in rental fees between June 30, 2025, and January 22, 2026, that Complainant issued twelve (12) invoices to Respondent in attempts to collect the debt owed, and that Respondent admittedly failed to timely remit payments in part or fully on any of the invoices at issue.
Therefore, the only issue remaining is whether Respondent raised a sufficient justification or excuse for failing to tender payment in full to Complainant on the underlying invoices. This is an affirmative defense that Respondent bears the burden to establish. There is no exigent or otherwise mitigating evidence in the record in favor of Respondent. Mr. Simmons Jr. admitted that Respondent owed Complainant $25,185.79 and did not provide a legal justification or excuse for its failure to pay. Mr. Simmons Jr.’s assertions that it remains willing to pay, when able, is not legally sufficient to satisfy the party’s burden of persuasion.
Here, the credible evidence of record establishes that Respondent failed to promptly pay Complainant for materials rented with a line of credit from Complainant, and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so.
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 ROC License No. 358446.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent ACRI LLC, License No. 358446, shall be suspended for its violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) until Respondent provides the Registrar with proof that $25,185.79 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. 2026-03286 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 06, 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]
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Complainant
c/o Lynne Welton, Agent
P.O. Box 8727
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
[email redacted]
ACRI LLC, Respondent
c/o Ronald Simmons, Jr., Agent
2031 W. Lone Cactus Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85027
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff