ALJDEC - Licensing

2022A-10839-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-04-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ruiz's Pool Plastering, LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Bill's Pool Service, Inc.

DBA: Money's Worth Pool Construction

License No. ROC 227545,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2022A-10839-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 29, 2023

APPEARANCES: Juan and Veronica Ruiz appeared on behalf of Complainant Ruiz’s Pool Plastering, LLC. Respondent Bill’s Pool Service, Inc., doing business as Money’s Worth Pool Construction, failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

Bill’s Pool Service, Inc., doing business as Money’s Worth Pool Construction (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 227545 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about November 2022, Ruiz’s Pool Plastering, LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $39,000.00 for the refinishing of a pool at Scottsdale Village Resort.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The matter was set for administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings on March 29, 2023. On the date and at the time set for hearing, and after proper notice, Respondent failed to appear. After a grace period, the matter proceeded to hearing.

Veronica Ruiz, Complainant’s Office Manager, testified that Complainant contracted with Respondent on October 27, 2022, to refinish the interior of the pool located at an apartment complex in Scottsdale. Ms. Ruiz testified that Complainant completed its work pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract. Complainant submitted an invoice to Respondent in the amount of $40,000.00. Ms. Ruiz testified that thereafter, the parties had verbally agreed for Respondent to pay Complainant $38,500.00.

On November 18, 2022, Respondent gave Complainant a check in the amount of $38,000.00, however, when Complainant deposited the check, it was returned due to non-sufficient funds.

Complainant attempted to contact Respondent via text, email, and phone in order to collect payment, however Respondent did not respond to any communications.

Ms. Ruiz testified that she contacted the apartment complex and spoke with an individual named George, who was the point of contact for the project. Ms. Ruiz testified that George informed her that Respondent had been paid in full for the project. Ms. Ruiz testified that Respondent is still in business and continues to work, and therefore, has funds to pay Complainant for its work on the project.

Ms. Ruiz testified that as of the hearing date, Respondent had not paid any amount toward the outstanding invoice.

Respondent failed to appear and therefore, did not present any controverting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is 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.”

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The evidence established that Respondent owes a total of $38,500.00 for the services provided by Complainant.

Respondent failed to appear, and as such, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the materials and services rendered and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the project.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $38.500.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 227545 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $38,500.00 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $38,500.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case Number 2022-10839.

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 11, 2023.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Juan Ruiz

Ruiz's Pool Plastering, LLC

[email redacted]

Bill's Pool Service, Inc.

dba Money’s Worth Pool Construction

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff