ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-11284-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Marlene Wolthuis,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Redd Dogg Welding LLC,
License No. ROC 326435,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-11284-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 3, 2026
APPEARANCES: Marlene Wolthuis appeared on her own behalf. Respondent’s Qualifying Party, Tyrone Bethea, appeared representing Redd Dogg Welding LLC. Investigator Jeremy Rosenthal appeared from the Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). _____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Redd Dogg Welding LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 326435, a CR-17 Steel and Aluminum Erection license, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in October 2019.
In August 2025, Marlene Wolthuis (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for the production and installation of metal railings and a metal gate at her home at the contracted price of $1,600.00. The work was completed on August 8, 2025.
On or about October 31, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant. The Complaint alleged abandonment and poor work in that the paint was peeling by August 17, 2025 “less than 2 weeks from install.” Further, the Complaint indicated that Respondent had “said he would be by the next week to touch up.” Complainant wrote the following:
“Gate not properly powder coated. Paint coming off. Sections rusting. Underside of metal bars not painted. Rusting. Tyrone states he left spray paint can so I could fix. Tyrone has stopped responding; will not remedy. Should not have to fix brand new gate/railing.”
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jeremy Rosenthal who scheduled a jobsite inspection for November 20, 2025.
Complainant was present at the November 20, 2025, Jobsite Inspection; Respondent was not present. Investigator Rosenthal reviewed the Complainant items with the Complainant and took multiple photographs to document the then-existing conditions of the project.
On November 25, 2025, Investigator Rosenthal issued a Written Directive (“Directive”) to Respondent, which 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, December 11, 2025.
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that
is outside the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or
is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective
work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other
contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s)
has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Gate not properly powder coated. Paint coming off.
Sections rusting.
Investigator’s Observation: There were several rails of the fixed gate near the front door and the swinging gate that had chipped paint resulting in rust forming. There were also several rails rusting from the lower portion of the rails where rust was climbing upwards and appearing through the paint. Respondent shall determine the cause of the chipping paint and rust then correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: 2 - Underside of metal bars not painted. Rusting.
Investigator’s Observation: This allegation was addressed in item # 1.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 3 - Tyrone has stopped responding; will not remedy.
Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is not related to minimum
workmanship issues and will not be addressed in this complaint.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 4 - Tyrone states he left spray paint can so I could fix.
Should not have to fix brand new gate/railing.
Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is not related to minimum
workmanship issues and will not be addressed in this complaint.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
When Investigator Rosenthal checked with Complainant on December 15, 2025, she advised that the corrective work was not completed.
Investigator Rosenthal was never contacted by Respondent.
On December 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:
Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A). 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.
Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.
At the March 3, 2025, hearing, Investigator Rosenthal testified regarding the background of the Complaint and the determinations set forth in the Written Directive. Investigator Rosenthal indicated that powder coating of rails is not the only option for a finish as long as the appropriate primer and paint is used. Investigator Rosenthal noted that he observed the paint and rusting issues on the railings and gate.
The photographs taken at the November 20, 2025, Jobsite Inspection depicted deficiencies in Respondent’s work at the time of that jobsite inspection.
At hearing, Complainant testified that Respondent had not offered a powder coat option at a higher price and that, since the Complaint was filed, there has been continued extensive rusting.
Complainant indicated that she had accepted the project at the time of installation, but that one week later the finish had already begun to fail. Complainant argued that Respondent had not responded to her communications concerns regarding the issues.
At hearing, Mr. Bethea testified that he had discussed with Complainant the higher priced option for a powder coating finish and that it had been out of her price range. He further indicated that the original price for the project with a spray-on paint option was $2,200.00 and that she asked for a lower price; he discounted it to $1,600.00. Mr. Bethea indicated he did some touch-up and left a spray can of the paint so she could do any further touch-up.
Mr. Bethea noted that he had only seen a scratch before and the photographs he received (inferred, with the Packet) were not what he had seen earlier.
Mr. Bethea testified that he had been in and out of town and the Complaint documents had been at his house when he returned. He argued that Respondent has a “right to repair” and that if Complainant will not give him access to repair, the case should be dismissed.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on March 3, 2026. Complainant case is noted to be the only open case. The Registrar’s ROC license record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 326435 was suspended on October 28, 2025, for failure to renew the 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.”
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards. Following a Jobsite Inspection and issuance of a Directive, a contractor is given a period of time during which the corrections should be made. A Directive specifically notes that the failure to comply with the Directive is a violation of the Arizona contracting statute 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.
In this case, the Jobsite Inspection and the Directive mandated correction of the workmanship issues on the railings and gate finish. However, Respondent’s license was suspended at the time of the Jobsite Inspection and as of the Directive issuance. Therefore, per the Directive, Respondent itself would not have been able to make the corrections at that time and, essentially, would have had to come to some other arrangement with Complainant. The Directive stated:
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
An appropriate period of time was given for completion of the Directive items, and there is no evidence that Respondent requested an extension of the time period to have the Directive items completed or resolve the matter.
Respondent did not perform any corrective work to complete the Directive items.
The evidence established that Respondent’s work on this project was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established that Respondent failed to complete the directed corrective work during the period of the Written Directive. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing and due to Respondent’s ROC License 326435 already being suspended,
It is recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar again note the revocation of 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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 6, 2026.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jeremy Rosenthal
ROC Investigator
[email redacted]
Marlene Wolthuis
[email redacted]
Redd Dogg Welding LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff