ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-03296-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Marianne Dodge,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Shelton Brothers, Inc.
License No. ROC 347861,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-03296-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 25, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Marianne Dodge appeared on her own behalf with her husband, Dave Dodge. Nate Shelton appeared on behalf of Respondent Shelton Brothers, Inc. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Cooke appeared as a witness. Sam Shelton appeared as a witness for Respondent Shelton Brothers, Inc. Roger Shear, John Brooks, and Jeff Shelton were present as observers.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Complainant Marianne Dodge’s Exhibit 1
Preliminary Matter
On July 18, 2025, Shelton Brothers, Inc. (“Respondent”) filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Office of Administrative Hearings, the basis of which was Respondent’s assertion that Marianne Dodge (“Complainant”) “is not a party to the contract at issue and therefore lacks standing to bring this action.”
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(B):
The registrar:
1. May investigate the acts of a contractor in this state on the registrar's own motion.
2. Shall investigate the acts of a contractor in this state on the written complaint of any owner or contractor that is a party to a construction contract or a person who suffers a material loss or injury as a result of a contractor's failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.
Complainant is “a person who suffer[ed] a material loss or injury as a result of [Respondent’s] failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.”
Therefore, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is the holder of License Number 347861 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Nate Shelton is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and President.
On or about October 16, 2024, Dave Dodge, Complainant’s husband, contracted with Respondent for Respondent to “pour concrete bearing footers at corners of two shipping containers[;] fabricate and erect 40’X40’X12’ steel structure between existing containers[;] 26GA R panel roofing and siding per estimate 1693[;] open on east side.” The contract price was $30,000.00. Complainant and Mr. Dodge paid Respondent a deposit in the amount of $15,000.00.
On or about April 1, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment of the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Cooke. After an April 28, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Cooke issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated May 5, 2025, 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 Thursday, May 22, 2025.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Contractor abandoned the job before finishing it. We are left with an unusable structure.
Investigator’s Observation: At the jobsite inspection, the complainants showed a partially finished structure designed to house livestock. The respondent states he left the job after a dispute occurred which led to law enforcement being called. The complainants did not trespass the respondent from the property and have agreed to allow safe access upon returning. This structure should be completed per contract in a timely manner.
After the May 22, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Cooke ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Cooke forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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(B), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.
Investigator Cooke testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive.
Investigator Cooke testified that prior to the Jobsite Inspection, Respondent provided to him a copy of a police report dated March 20, 2025. The police report indicates the following:
On 03/20/2025, Leonard Dodge contacted SEACOM reporting a verbal disagreement between himself and his contractor, Nathaniel Shelton. Leonard stated, he hired Nathaniel to complete a project at his property, located at 5261 E Dragon Winds Way in Dragoon. Leonard and Nathaniel, argued about the project not being completed in the time specified in the contract signed by both individuals. I explained to Leonard, and Nathaniel, this was a civil issue which should be handled utilizing the civil court system. Leonard stated, he wanted Nathaniel to leave his property for the remainder of the day. Nathaniel agreed, loaded his equipment on his truck, and left the property without incident.
Noting further to report.
Investigator Cooke advised Respondent that Respondent was not “trespassed” from Complainant’s property. Investigator Cooke verified with Complainant that Respondent would be granted safe access to the property for the Jobsite Inspection and for any work potentially required by the Written Directive. Prior to the Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Cooke emailed Complainant the following:
As you know, we have a jobsite inspection coming up. While researching your case specifics, I've gathered more information. The respondent mentioned the police were called and he was asked to leave the property. There was also a text message shared with me that indicated an alternate civil venue may be being used in the near future.
With this in mind, I do need to ensure that the contractor will be allowed to join the jobsite inspection and IF a directive was to be written, would you allow the contract back to complete the work? As I'm sure you recall, the ROC process does require cooperation from the complainant's side to allow any work to be performed. If relations between the both of you have moved past that point and access isn't something you wish to allow, then I'd need to dismiss the case. Keep in mind that a dismissal of the complaint should not discourage you from pursuing alternate civil venues.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Thank you!
Complainant responded to Investigator Cooke as follows:
The police were called due to his erratic and hostile treatment of us. The police did not ask him to leave and he was not trespassed. He stated that he needed to leave and think about some things. Nate did not physically do the work. He was just there. We asked that the others who did the previous work on the job be the ones to finish since he was so hostile to us. He can come back to this inspection. He has sold or put up for sale our materials for this job. We would allow his company to do the work but requested that he personally not do it.
We want our job done and done right. He did not weld pieces he said he would weld in addition to gussets.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Investigator Cooke responded to Complainant as follows:
Understood. Thank you for clarifying.
I could not tell the respondent that he cannot be on the job as he is the license holder and the contractor. The ROC has no say in who is sent to do the hypothetical directed work. If the respondent chose to complete the work, personally, would that cause any conflict?
Complainant responded to Investigator Cooke as follows: “I guess our concern is that he would do a bad job - we would want you to follow up and inspect it to be sure that all was done right. Do you see? Investigator Cooke responded to Complainant’s concerns as follows: “Yes ma'am. I understand. A compliance inspection could be performed if necessary. I just need to ensure access will be allowed if this process is to continue.” Complainant responded affirmatively to Investigator Cooke’s direct question, as follows, “Yes.”
The Jobsite Inspection was performed without incident. Investigator Cooke testified that at the Jobsite Inspection, he discussed with the parties that safe access must be granted to Respondent to perform corrective work.
After the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent informed Investigator Cooke that Complainant had written negative Facebook posts regarding Respondent. Investigator Cooke testified that he told Respondent that he believed it was still “safe” to perform the corrective work pursuant to the Written Directive and that the Facebook posts should not deter Respondent from performing the required corrective work. Respondent thereafter informed Investigator Cooke that Respondent would not be performing any corrective work.
Complainant agreed with Investigator Cooke’s testimony. Complainant testified that Respondent began work on the project on November 16, 2024, and March 20, 2025, was Respondent’s last day on the job. Complainant attempted to communicate with Respondent via email and text messages, however, Respondent did not respond to Complainant.
Nate Shelton testified that by the time the Written Directive issued, Respondent no longer had the resources to complete the project, and he has experienced “health issues.” Mr. Shelton testified that he has not been working and does not dispute Investigator Cooke’s or Complainant’s testimony. Mr. Shelton asserted that by calling the police on March 20, 2025, Complainant breached the parties’ contract.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 6, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 347861 was first issued on September 26, 2023, and is revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including the instant Complainant, no resolved/settled complaints, and one 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. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D):
The expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license by operation of law or by decision and order of the registrar or a court of law or the voluntary surrender of a license by a licensee does not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such a licensee, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license, or denying the renewal or right of renewal of such a license.
The evidence established that Respondent failed to perform its work in accordance with professional industry standards due to Respondent failing to diligently complete the project. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and Respondent acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 revoke Respondent’s License Number 347861.
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, August 8, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Shelton Brothers, Inc.
[email redacted]
Marianne Dodge
[email redacted]
David Cooke
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff