ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-11395-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kristi Frithsen,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Warrior garage doors and gates LLC,

License No. ROC 361286,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-11395-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 18, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Kristi Frithsen appeared on her own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Heath Richards appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Warrior Garage Door and Gates LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 361286 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about August 8, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to erect a fence at her residence in Tucson, Arizona. The total contracted price was $16,962.28, and Complainant paid the same.

On or about November 2, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Heath Richards. The jobsite inspection was performed on November 25, 2025.

Investigator Richards then issued a Written Directive on or about December 5, 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 Monday, December 29, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - "Fence is unattached due to poor welding....."

Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the complainant pointed out that a section of the top rail had come completely detached from the post. The complainant also pointed out several areas where the weld attaching the top rail to the post was not present on all four sides of the top rail. Additionally, the welds observed had poor fusion and a lack of penetration.

This condition appeared to be present throughout the entire project. The Respondent shall 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

Complaint Item: 2 - "...Mesh is pulling away from fence...."

Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the complainant pointed out several areas in which the 4- foot mesh skirt had come undone from the pickets. The mesh was attached by one screw at the top of the mesh at seemingly random intervals. Screws or attachment points of any kind were absent from the field and the bottom edge of the mesh. The screws had pulled through the mesh in a few sections, causing the mesh to detach from the fence. The mesh should be properly secured to prevent excessive stress on connection points, which could result in failure. The Respondent shall 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

Complaint Item: 3 - "... Gaps in welding...."

Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the complainant pointed out several areas on the fencing where the welds observed had poor fusion and a lack of penetration. Welds also did not cover all four sides of posts, pickets, and rails. Additionally, the welds for pickets were haphazardly placed: Some pickets were welded to the front of the rails, some in the middle and some in the back. The location of the weld attaching the picket to the rail was not consistent on the same picket or section. These conditions appeared to be present throughout the entire project. The Respondent shall 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

Complaint Item: 4 - "...Rust from improper painting...."

Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the complainant pointed out a spray pattern on the fencing that matched the mesh pattern. This appears to indicate that the painting was done after the mesh was attached to the fence. The unpainted areas matched the fencing pattern. These unpainted areas had rust, the areas with these unpainted conditions appeared to be leaching rust to the visible side of the fence as well. Additionally, paint coverage throughout the project was light, and every section of the fencing observed had rusting. The Respondent shall 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

Complaint Item: 5 - Fence is weak. Poles pop out when hit by ball Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the complainant pointed out that a picket had detached from both the top and bottom rails and stated that a ball had knocked the picket loose. The complainant pulled lightly on a nearby picket, and it became unattached from its top and bottom rails.

Additionally, the welds observed had poor fusion and a lack of penetration. This condition appeared to be present throughout the entire project. The Respondent shall 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

Complaint Item: 6 - Missing a support pole

Investigator’s Observation: During the jobsite inspection, the complainant pointed out that the fence consisted of 8-foot sections except in one area at the front of the property where there was a 16-foot span which lacked a post. The top and bottom rails were welded together here, end to end. More than likely, a post was intended to be placed here to support the 8-foot sections of the fence, as there are at every other location where sections meet. Additionally, the welds observed had poor fusion and a lack of penetration. This condition appeared to be present throughout the entire project. The Respondent shall 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

. . .

(All errors contained in the original).

On January 5, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about January 18, 2026, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about February 12, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on March 18, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A copy of the same was e-mailed and mailed to both party’s addresses of record. Further, on February 12, 2026, issued an Order containing the Google Meet information for the hearing, which too was e-mailed to both party’s addresses of record.

On March 17, 2026, Respondent requested a continuance stating that he may be unable to attend due to caring for his sick mother yet provided no proof of the same. Complainant objected to the continuance.

The hearing took place as scheduled on March 18, 2026. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

At hearing, Investigator Richards testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He also testified that no representative from Respondent appeared at the initial jobsite inspection and that no corrective work was performed.

Complainant testified that she gave Respondent a “ton” of time to remedy the project, but the fence continued to get worse.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior license record on April 2, 2026. Such prior license record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 361286 was first issued on September 19, 2025. The license record also reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case and one “Resolved/Settled Case[s]”.

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).

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice.

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 fence was becoming detached, mesh was pulling away from the fence, there were gaps in the welding, rust from poor painting, and support poles were missing leading to weakness in the fence.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that no corrective work was completed. 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 Nos. 361286 for a period of four days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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, April 2, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Kristi Frithsen

[email redacted]

Warrior garage doors and gates LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff