ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07831-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Wael Bebawy,
COMPLAINANT
v.
KRC Painting LLC
License No. ROC 329162,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-07831-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 20, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Wael Bebawy
Respondent: Kenneth Clemmens
Registrar of Contractors: Jeremy Rosenthal, Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
KRC Painting, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 329162 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 4, 2020.
On or about May 7, 2025, Wael Bebawy (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, house painting.
On or about August 6, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Rosenthal, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on August 11, 2025, scheduling the inspection for August 27, 2025.
Investigator Rosenthal conducted the jobsite inspection on August 27, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Rosenthal issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on September 2, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 2 - Wall cracks and repair was not treated correctly.
Investigator’s Observation: On the East side of the house, there were multiple cracks in the sand finish stucco which had not been refinished properly. Many cracks running for 6 or more feet had been filled with caulk which ultimately shrunk and was then painted. These extensive cracks needed to be filled, refinished with the correct sand finish and then painted. Additionally, there was an area which needs proper sand finish in the rear yard, Southwest window upper left popout and one section near the front door to the right of the light. Respondent shall work with the homeowner to identify and correct all poorly repaired stucco cracks by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 4 - Window's frame painted poorly and unprofessionally.
Investigator’s Observation: There was a section on the hand side of the sliding glass door leading into the rear which had been painted in two different sheens including flat paint and gloss or semi-gloss sheen. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 8 - Damaged landscaping lights in the backyard after removing it from the normal place and broke my garden hose.
Investigator’s Observation: Complainant showed me a couple of in ground
landscape lights that Respondent agreed he tripped over while working and caused
damage. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 9 - Dug a big hole and gutter drain in the back yard without permission and left it behind.
Investigator’s Observation: Complainant showed me an area on the back (South) of the fireplace bench seating area which had been dug out. Respondent said it was placed there to allow water to drain away from the Saltillo tiled area which pressure washing in order to prep for sealing. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 10 - Inappropriate paint under ceiling fan in the backyard and garage door.
Investigator’s Observation: There was a small area surrounding the ceiling fan installed on the underside of the patio cover which needs to be cut in with paint. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 11 - Paint allover the AC unit and pool equipment's and garage opener.
Investigator’s Observation: There was paint splatter, drips and overspray on the AC condensers, pool pump equipment and piping in the pool equipment nook caused by Respondent during the job. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 12 - Paint allover the backyard gravel and grass area in the front, killing my plants.
Investigator’s Observation: There was an area of gravel in the rear yard to the East side of the sidewalk leading into the rear yard. This area was full of discolored gravel which had been a light red or rose colored gravel. This area contained paint residue which colored the gravel white. The Respondent said, "We used that area as a washout like all painters do." In this same area along the fence bordering the yard were several spots of paint appearing on multiple piles of rocks. Digging a hole and washing out equipment on a jobsite is not appropriate and not a standard practice of professional painting contractors. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Rosenthal of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 18, 2025.
Investigator Rosenthal testified that, on September 16, 2025, Respondent requested an extension for compliance with the Written Directive, which Investigator Rosenthal denied for failure to show sufficient cause.
On September 18, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Rosenthal that no corrective work had been performed on the project.
On September 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on October 5, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted a general denial and that Complainant was hostile.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On December 9, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for January 20, 2026.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on January 20, 2026.
Investigator Rosenthal testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, and the Citation.
Complainant testified in support of Investigator Rosenthal’s findings and testimony.
Respondent testified that Complainant was a great guy and the relationship was good in the beginning. Respondent accepted responsibility for the painted rocks and testified he had planned to clean or replace the area of rock where the water had been washed out from the paint rig; however, the day before the final day of the project, Complainant told Respondent to not come back because Complainant believed a text message Respondent sent the prior evening was threatening. Respondent stated the final day of the project was for touch-up and clean-up, and had he not been fired the previous day, he would have addressed a few of the Complaint items then. Respondent claimed he attempted to contact Complainant during the directive period, but was unsuccessful.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 12, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 329162 was Suspended; and there were 3 open complaints, no disciplined cases, and 1 resolved/settled complaint 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The preponderance of the evidence 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 for one business day Respondent’s License No. 329162.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
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 16, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
KRC Painting LLC
[email redacted]
Jeremy Rosenthal, Investigator
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Wael Bebawy
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff