ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08862-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Anne Rodriguez,

COMPLAINANT

Holsten Plumbing Inc,

License No. ROC 357240,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-08862-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 5, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Anne Rodriguez appeared on her own behalf. Josh Holsten appeared on behalf of Holsten Plumbing Inc. Investigator Gregory Johndrow appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibit A was admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Holsten Plumbing Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 357240 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 16, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to perform plumbing services at her residence in Tucson, Arizona. The total contracted price was $5,625.00, and Complainant paid $3,172.50.

On or about September 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 Gregory Johndrow. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 22, 2025.

Investigator Johndrow then issued a Written Directive on September 22, 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 Wednesday, October 8, 2025 .

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: “Plumber's pipe install (sink vent through roof) protrudes through drywall, making existing interior wall non-repairable”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The vent line installed by the respondent protrudes through the face of the drywall.

The condition observed does not meet industry standards.

The vent line has not been permitted or inspected and does not meet code compliance.

The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive.

If the local jurisdiction finds corrective issues relating to the respondent’s work, the respondent will be required to correct those issues by appropriate means. The respondent is required to submit a copy of the approved inspection results to the ROC Investigator.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 2: “When questioned about code compliance, plumber dismissed concerns repeatedly and offered shady solutions”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The vent line has not been permitted or inspected and does not meet code compliance.

The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Complaint Item 3: “Plumber cut wall stud for pipe fitting. Concerned it's load bearing and not properly repaired.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The ledger at the ceiling framing was cut out and removed for the routing of the vent line. The work was not permitted or inspected.

The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9- 108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 4: “Plumber performed drywall repair with improper materials and techniques as confirmed by licensed drywall contractor”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The drywall work performed by the respondent does not meet industry standards.

Drywall is not within the scope of the respondent’s CR-37 plumbing license classification.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16): Kowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

Complaint Item 5: “Plumber performed additional non-compliant drywall repair work in other areas”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The drywall work performed by the respondent does not meet industry standards.

Drywall is not within the scope of the respondent’s CR-37 plumbing license classification.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16): Kowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

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

NO PERMIT

Warning Letter: Performing permit required work without a permit being obtained.

Investigator’s Observations: The plumbing work performed by the respondent requires a permit.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3)(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards...

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION:

The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive.

OUT OF SCOPE

Warning Letter: Working beyond scope of License.

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent performed drywall work, which is beyond the scope of the CR-37 plumbing license.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16): Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

. . .

(All errors contained in the original).

While Investigator Johndrow did not conduct a physical Compliance Jobsite Inspection he noted the following in pertinent part on October 9, 2025:

. . .

Compliance Findings: The respondent has not taken appropriate corrective action to comply with the Directive.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22): Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter...

(All errors contained in the original).

On October 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about October 23, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 12, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 18, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on March 5, 2026.

At hearing, Investigator Johndrow testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He also testified that there was no representative for Respondent present at the Jobsite Inspection and that no corrective work had been performed. Further, Investigator Johndrow testified that Respondent only had a CR-37 plumbing license and not a license to perform drywall work.

Complainant testified that Mr. Holsten forced her into performing the valve relocation in order to preserve his warranty and only later found out that the original location of the valve was code complainant while the new location was not. Complainant was seeking a full refund as well as compensation for damages.

Mr. Holsten testified that per A.R.S. § 32-1105, he was permitted to work outside of the scope of his license, if the work was incidental to the main job. As to the permit issue, Mr. Holsten testified that Complainant was responsible for obtaining the same. In addition, Mr. Holsten testified that Complainant denied him access to the property to correct the work.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 20, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 357240 was first issued on February 20, 2025. The License record also 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)(2)(b), as the was no permit obtained for this project.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as the vent line protruded through the wall, the wall stud was cut for pipe fitting and not repaired.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); as Respondent’s license does not include drywall work. The tribunal does not find Mr. Holsten’s argument persuasive that the drywall work was incidental or supplemental to the plumbing work in this case, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1105(D).

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that all items remained incomplete. There was no credible evidence provided by Mr. Holsten to demonstrate a denial of access during the corrective work period. 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. 357240 for a period of three days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 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 20, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Anne Rodriguez

[email redacted]

Holsten Plumbing Inc.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff