ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-07673-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Daniel Jaklich,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Rvca Pool Tile, LLC
License Nos. ROC 330334, 330336,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-07673-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 14, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Daniel Jaklich appeared on his own behalf. Ramon Vega-Castro and Rosa Noris Quintana appeared on behalf of Respondent Rvca Pool Tile, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Patricia Schuette appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rvca Pool Tile, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Numbers 330334, Specialty Dual CR-36 Plastering, and 330336, Specialty Dual CR-48 Ceramic, Plastic and Metal Tile, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Ramon Vega-Castro is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Manager, and Rosa Noris Quintana is Respondent’s owner.
In or about early 2023, Daniel Jaklich (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to complete work on Complainant’s pool, pool decking, and landscaping.
On or about July 8, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Patricia Schuette. After a July 29, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Schuette issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated August 20, 2024, 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 September 13, 2024.
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1- Sitewide grading corrections for drainage, per DKG
Civil engineering Topographic Survey Review Letter, incomplete
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are multiple locations where water does not drain away from foundation, perimeter along fence, and in grass areas due to solid edge pavers. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 2- Stormwater and irrigation ponding at foundation
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. This is in part duplication to item 1.
Solid paver mortared in do not allow water to drain away from foundation.
Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 3- Lawn drain sized incorrectly. Lawn drain missing.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. It does not appear that the drain
installed on the N side will accommodate the amount of water runs to it.
Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 4- Ponding at lawn steps
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a drain installed by the steps however the grading on the pavers slopes opposite direction.
Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 5- Lawn sloped incorrectly in multiple areas
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is an area on the rear S grass area where there is a low spot in the back corner that does not appear to be able to drain properly. As mentioned in item 1 and 2, multiple locations cannot drain as intended due to pavers or improper slope. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 6- No fine grading nor proper compaction in planter beds, nuisance ponding and plant loss
Investigator’s Observation: Partially verified. The ponding has been corrected but fabric and rock need to be reinstalled. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 7- Lawn elevated above pool, sloped towards pool
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication to item 5. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 11- Pool deck lippage greater than 1/8th inch difference in height between adjacent pavers
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are multiple pool deck pavers that exceed the tolerance of 1/16”. Respondent to identify with complainant and correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 12 - Low voltage ledge lights installed proud of step nose
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are several step lights that stick out past the deck pavers that could cause a trip hazard. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 13 - No metal reinforcement used in paver patio concrete border/edge restraint
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified however, there are several pavers that appear to bridge over the concrete that is supposed to support them too far. These pavers do not appear that they would support the weight of someone stepping on them. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 15- Irrigation lines daylit
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are sections of the drip system that are not buried. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 16 - Driplines not installed at all plants
Investigator’s Observation: Partially verified. Some locations have the spaghetti line that does not appear to be close enough. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 19 - Decorative rocks uneven, spread too thin, or uninstalled
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There were several areas where the rock was pulled back for repairs. Respondent to correct within appropriate means and ensure proper coverage.
Complaint Item: 20 - Limestone paver border damaged by landscape crew, loose pavers
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are two locations where the pavers are cracked to include one that continues along the face tile below.
Complaint Item: 21- Metal lawn edge restraint raised above pavers and pool elevation, flooding of ground level wood deck overflow into pool
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. It appears that the adjacent materials edging and grass will interfere with the area under the deck from draining away. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 24- River rock (pending installation) and excess dirt (removed from site) left piled in street for 2+ months
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication of item 8 and 19.
Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 25- Landscaping interferes with existing drainage.
Site regraded (or lack thereof) to slope towards main house foundation
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication of item 1, 2, and 3.
Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 26- Ponding at foundation, ponding throughout yard.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication of item 1, 2, and 3.
Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 27- Poolside paver patio edge wall cracked and settling, cracking pavers
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplicate to item 20.
Respondent to correct within appropriate means.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: 8- Excess dirt left piled in areas intended for wooden deck, blocking poolhouse contractor from building deck
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. There is rock in this area that the
Respondent will be reinstalling in the planter beds.
Complaint Item: 9- Replacement plants for expected plant loss unplanted, area unfinished
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The ROC does not make any representation or rulings on loss of vegetation.
Complaint Item: 10 - Lawn steps not level, excessive excessive lippage and gap between pavers outside of Workmanship Standards guidelines
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. All of the pavers were within the
1/16” allowable tolerance.
Complaint Item: 14- Excessive gap between pavers in field and at edges throughout all paver patios
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. It is typical to see some gapping between pavers and usually filled with some kind of polymer sand to help lock into place.
Complaint Item: 17 - Irrigation in garden beds not yet installed
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified.
Complaint Item: 18 - Emitters incorrectly sized to plant type and yard location, resulting in plant loss
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Not enough evidence to support.
Complaint Item: 22- Painters plastic remains in planter beds despite agreement to use woven weed fabric, paid/provided by homeowner
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Not enough evidence to support.
Complaint Item: 23- HVAC unit tipping due to ponding water
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The unit is not level but not outside of norm.
All errors in original.
The deadline for compliance was extended at the request of both parties. Consequently, on September 19, 2024, Investigator Schuette issued an Amended Written Directive extending the deadline for compliance with the Amended Written Directive to October 4, 2024.
On December 5, 2024, Investigator Schuette conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection at which both parties were present. Four of the items were corrected. Fifteen items were not corrected because they were outside the scope of Respondent’s licensure. The Compliance Jobsite General Notes indicate the following in pertinent part:
Both parties were present at the inspection. The out of scope work was not resolved by the time of the inspection. Both respondent and complainant got bid(s) for corrections. There was a large disconnect in price and scope of work.
Thereafter, Investigator Schuette forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearing, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.
Investigator Schuette testified consistently with the findings contained in her Jobsite Inspection Notes, the Written Directive, and Compliance Jobsite General Notes. Investigator Schuette testified that upon her initial review of the Complaint, it appeared that multiple items were outside the scope of Respondent’s licensure, and therefore, on July 12, 2024, she issued a Warning Letter to Respondent regarding its out of scope work.
Investigator Schuette testified that she did not have much interaction with the parties during the initial period of the Written Directive.
On September 13, 2024, Respondent sent an email to Investigator Schuette stating that all of the items of corrective work for which it was licensed to perform had been corrected, and that Respondent had obtained a bid from a licensed landscape contractor to perform the remainder of the corrective work. However, because Respondent was not licensed to perform landscaping work, it could not subcontract for such work to be performed.
On September 19, 2024, Complainant emailed Investigator Schuette stating that he was attempting to obtain bids to perform the corrective work to the landscaping. On November 21, 2024, Complainant emailed Investigator Schuette stating that he was having difficulty obtaining bids for corrective work due to the filed Complaint with the Registrar.
Investigator Schuette testified that a licensed contractor is required to know the scope of the work it is licensed to perform and that it cannot subcontract for work that it is not licensed to perform. Furthermore, a contractor cannot seek a waiver or disclaimer from a homeowner that would allow it to perform work outside the scope of its license(s).
Complainant agreed with Investigator Schuette’s testimony, and also testified that at the time he contracted with Respondent, he was not aware that Respondent was not licensed to perform landscaping work.
Ms. Noris testified that Complainant was aware that Respondent was only licensed to perform the work on the pool, and that because Complainant was pleased with Respondent’s work, he asked for Respondent to perform the landscaping project. Complainant gave Respondent detailed plans and Respondent agreed to perform the work. Ms. Noris testified that the work was done according to Complainant’s instructions. Ms. Noris acknowledged that Respondent is not a landscaping contractor and admitted to having had this “issue before.” Ms. Noris testified that she understood that the job was outside the scope of Respondent’s license and that Respondent “should not have taken the job” and only did so because Complainant agreed. Ms. Noris testified that Respondent attempted to correct its mistake, however, the Registrar would not allow Respondent do so because it was outside the scope of its licensure.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 16, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 330334 was first issued on August 25, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, one resolved/settled complaint, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record also reflects that Respondent’s License Number 330336 was first issued on August 25, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record reflects that there is only one open complaint, however, it is not the instant Complaint, there are no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s 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 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 professional and 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 knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its licenses. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 Numbers 330334 and 330336 for a period of seven (7) 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 (30) 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, May 19, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
[email redacted]
Patricia Schuette
[email redacted]
Daniel Jaklich
[email redacted]
Rvca Pool Tile, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff