ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-02534-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-11
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Tad Johnson,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Pleasure Spas Inc.
DBA: Pleasure Pools,
License No. ROC 166025,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-02534-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 22, 2024, and November 25, 2024
APPEARANCES: Tad Johnson appeared on his own behalf. Owen Brown, President, appeared on behalf of Respondent Pleasure Spas Inc. doing business as Pleasure Pools.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pleasure Spas Inc. doing business as Pleasure Pools (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 166025 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about November 1, 2022, Tad Johnson (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the installation of artificial turf.
On or about March 1, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Smith. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Smith issued a written directive to Respondent that 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 Friday, May 3, 2024.
Note: Please Spas Inc, DBA Pleasure Pools has two contractor licenses.
One is a Pool Contractor license, the other is a General Contractor license.
The Pool license is specifically for building pools.
Work related to the artificial turf is not included in the scope of work for a Pool license.
Work related to the artificial turf could normally be done under the General Contractor License.
However, the General Contractor license is currently suspended for lack of bond, and has been since March 5, 2024.
The respondent cannot currently perform work related to the artificial turf, and cannot currently hire others to perform work related to the artificial turf.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Turf area has multiple visible sink holes under the laid turf.
Turf is coming apart at the joining seams.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Conditions observed on site:
• There are visible low/sinking areas of the turf.
• The seams are visibly coming apart.
Included in an email from the respondent to [email redacted], dated 4/12/24 at 12:52PM:
• We are having issues with the seams on a few installs, and it appears the turf is coming out or something is happening.
Included in an email from [email redacted] to the respondent, dated 4/12/24 at 1:01PM:
• I can see from the pictures you have a problem on the seam, and it looks like you have a pretty good striping issue as well.
. . . .
Complaint Item 2: “Currently have an active case: 2023-11844”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “Case number 2023-11844, set court date on 29 March 2024.”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
. . . .
Complaint Item 4: “Sink holes in turf area, coming apart.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Conditions observed on site:
• There are visible low/sinking areas of the turf.
• The seams are visibly coming apart.
Included in an email from the respondent to [email redacted], dated 4/12/24 at 12:52PM:
• We are having issues with the seams on a few installs, and it appears the turf is coming out or something is happening.
Included in an email from [email redacted] to the respondent, dated 4/12/24 at 1:01PM:
• I can see from the pictures you have a problem on the seam, and it looks like you have a pretty good striping issue as well.
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Smith was notified no corrective work had been performed.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible 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).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The matter was originally set for hearing to convene on July 2, 2024. At that time, Respondent acknowledged there were issues with the artificial turf installation and agreed to perform additional corrective work to resolve the matter.
The matter was continued to a status update due by September 5, 2024.
On or about August 29, 2024, Complainant emailed the Office of Administrative Hearings indicating that he had not received any contact from Respondent and wished to proceed with the hearing.
The hearing was scheduled to reconvene on November 25, 2024. Investigator Smith indicated he would be unavailable for a hearing on that date and the hearing was again continued to December 9, 2024.
A December 2, 2024 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on December 9, 2024.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. 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.
Complainant testified that nothing had changed since the initial hearing setting and the issues identified in the written directive still existed.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 11, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 166025 was first issued on July 30, 2001, and was revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there were 2 open complaints, 2 resolved/settled complaints, and 16 complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint. See A.R.S. § 32-1154(D).
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 evidence established that Respondent’s work 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 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. 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 revoke suspend Respondent’s License No. 166025.
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)(5), 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 11, 2025.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Tad Johnson
[email redacted]
Pleasure Spas Inc.
DBA: Pleasure Pools
[email redacted]
John Smith
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff