ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02088-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kathleen C Ketcham,

COMPLAINANT

ROME ZONE STILE LLC

License No. ROC 341754,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-02088-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 17, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Kathleen C. Ketcham appeared on her own behalf. Michael Romero appeared on behalf of Respondent Rome Zone Stile LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Lisa Melton appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A-E were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Rome Zone Stile LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 341754 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 5, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to repair her shower pan at her residence in Phoenix, Arizona.

On or about March 1, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 17, 2025.

Investigator Melton then issued a Written Directive on or about May 2, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 June 2, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item 1: multiple chipped and cracked tiles from 3 attempts to repair drain from jackhammering

Investigator’s Observation: There are multiple chipped and cracked tiles.

Respondent scope of work did not include replacement of all shower tile.

Tile to be replaced are identified in invoice as “demo wall tiles marked by client and reinstall new ones to include the areas that are missing”.

Multiple attempts to correctly complete the work relative to drain were performed by Respondent.

The existing tile is no longer available and tile of the same size as the existing tile is not available.

• In an effort to address the unavailable tile situation, Respondent ground tile to get installation size. Grinding is useful for curved cuts, creating holes or reducing the size of a tile to fit a specific space. It is not appropriate for installation of a field of tiles or numerous tiles as the dimensions will not be exact.

The Registrar has the authority to direct a Respondent to correct poor workmanship. Materials for corrective work are required to match as closely as possible. The Registrar does not have the authority to direct the Respondent to replace all of the shower tile because the replacement tile is not available. Respondent should correct by appropriate methods all chipped and cracked tile that they installed or damaged during their work with tile that matches as closely as possible.

Governing Rule:

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Compliance Item 4: uneven and mismatched grout lines that looks DIY

Investigator’s Observation: There are irregular grout lines.

• Respondent scope of work did not include replacement of all shower tile.

• Tile to be replaced are identified in invoice as “demo wall tiles marked by client and reinstall new ones to include the areas that are missing”.

• Multiple attempts to correctly complete the work relative to drain were performed by Respondent.

• The existing tile is no longer available and tile of the same size as the existing tile is not available.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Compliance Item 6 – IDENTIFIED AT INSPECTION: Respondent did not obtain a permit for the concealed plumbing, drain relocation and shower pan work that they performed.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent should comply with all permit/inspection requirements for the permit required work they have performed. Respondent should provide the Registrar ([email redacted]) documentation of a closed/completed permit for permit required work they have performed.

(All errors contained in original).

On October 14, 2025, Investigator Melton performed a Compliance Inspection, and issued his Compliance Notes as follows:

. . .

Item 1: multiple chipped and cracked tiles from 3 attempts to repair drain from jackhammering

Investigator’s Initial Observation: There are multiple chipped and cracked tiles.

• Respondent scope of work did not include replacement of all shower tile.

• Tile to be replaced are identified in invoice as “demo wall tiles marked by client and reinstall new ones to include the areas that are missing”.

• Multiple attempts to correctly complete the work relative to drain were performed by Respondent.

• The existing tile is no longer available and tile of the same size as the existing tile is not available.

Compliance Observation: Complainant provided the following concerns with correction work -

1. Improper drain installation (linear drain frame sits well below the tile line on one side)

Observation: The drain body is not flush with the height of tile surface as required by manufacturer. This does not meet workmanship standards.

2. Poor drainage on one side of the linear drain (left looking into the shower)

Observation: There was a very small amount of water remaining in drain channel before water test and when water was applied water appeared to drain sufficiently. Drain concerns ARE addressed in further items. No manufacturer inspection. Insufficient evidence to substantiate poor workmanship.

3. The original drain appears to be cut where the trough meets the downspout (the original is all one piece)

Observation: Drain is installed and functioning. Insufficient evidence to substantiate poor work.

Modified pan slope with “skim coat” float to fill in low spots (I have pictures and texts)

Observation: Shower pan requires permit/inspection. Respondent did not complete permit. Respondent is required to comply with code/permit requirements.

Chipped tile edges (a manual scratch tile cutter was used for the tile installation)

Observation: There are many tiny chips in the shower tile. This does not meet workmanship standards.

Broken floor tile with attempt repair to hide damage

Observation: I was shown one floor tile with a crack. This does not meet workmanship standards.

8. Misaligned tiles

Observation: There is some slight variation in several areas, however, the tile is not irregularly installed. Complainant has concerns about the Schluter trim anchor leg being installed under the tile as their other shower niche is not. Embedding the anchoring leg of the Schluter is acceptable. Tile alignment meets minimum workmanship standards.

Sealer residue all over tile

Observation: Concern is relative to wall tiles. Respondent acknowledged the concern and stated that it is “grout haze”. This does not meet workmanship standards.

Stripping acidic agent used on our tile that now has a noticeably different texture and possibly compromising tile integrity

Observation: There is streaking on the tile (addressed in #9), however, I cannot substantiate that the texture has been impacted or that the integrity of the tile is compromised.

Striping agent damaged our concrete floor because the contractor did not protect it

Observation: Respondent acknowledged that this happened during their performance of work. This does not meet workmanship standards.

THIS NUMBER WAS OMITTED IN LIST OF CONCERNS FROM COMPLAINANT.

The entire shower floor is not sloped properly in accordance with a linear drain installation

Observation: The shower floor requires permit and inspection. The purpose of this inspection is to inspect the slope. The Respondent was directed to complete permit, however, the permit was not completed. Substantially the same as #4. This does not meet workmanship standards.

Screws directly into the backer board that were used to hold up tile from sliding during installation. Screw holes notrecoated with waterproofing prior to tile going over the holes.

Observation: Unable to inspect as this work was covered by other work. Respondent acknowledged that they did not red guard but used thin set over screw holes. Thin set is not intended to provide water proof barrier. This does not meet workmanship standards.

Governing Rule:

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Compliance Item 4: uneven and mismatched grout lines that looks DIY

Investigator’s Initial Observation: There are irregular grout lines.

Respondent scope of work did not include replacement of all shower tile.

Tile to be replaced are identified in invoice as “demo wall tile marked by client and reinstall new ones to include the areas that are missing”.

Multiple attempts to correctly complete the work relative to drain were performed by Respondent.

The existing tile is no longer available and tile of the same size as the existing tile is not available.

In an effort to address the unavailable tile situation, Respondent ground tile to get installation size. Grinding is useful for curved cuts, creating holes or reducing the size of a tile to fit a specific space. It is not appropriate for installation of a field of tiles or numerous tiles as the dimensions will not be exact.

Compliance Observation: Complainant provided the following concerns with corrective work -

7. Uneven grout lines

Observation: Grout is not missing and does not appear to be irregular installation. Grout meets workmanship standards.

Governing Rule:

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Compliance Item 6 – IDENTIFIED AT INSPECTION: Respondent did not obtain a permit for the concealed plumbing, drain relocation and shower pan work that they performed.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Respondent should comply with all permit/inspection requirements for the permit required work they have performed. Respondent should provide the Registrar ([email redacted]) documentation of a closed/completed permit for permit required work they have performed.

Compliance Observation: Respondent did not complete permit process.

Governing Rule:

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

On November 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A)and (B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about November 29, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about December 12, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on January 20, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on February 17, 2026.

At hearing, Investigator Melton testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. Investigator Melton also testified that Complainant agreed to extend the Directive deadline until September 1, 2025

Complainant testified Mr. Romero attempted to repair the shower three times, and it was still incomplete. Complainant also testified that she was concerned over the integrity of the shower pan and the walls.

Mr. Romero testified that he learned a lesson that he needed to obtain and permit and has done so moving forward on his projects. He also testified that he admitted the issues with the sealer and the lippage of the tile being 3/16 of an inch off.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 4, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 341754 was first issued on November 15, 2022. The License record reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there were numerous workmanship issues.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B), as Respondent did not obtain a permit prior to the commencement of the work.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established all items remained incomplete. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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. 341754 for three business days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, March 4, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Kathleen C Ketcham

[email redacted]

ROME ZONE STILE LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff