ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-10680-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Gale Ellsworth
COMPLAINANT
v.
Ramos Pool Plastering & Construction LLC,
License No. ROC 334589
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-10680-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 20, 2025
APPEARANCES: Gale Ellsworth (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. Carlos Ramos appeared on behalf of Ramos Pool Plastering & Construction LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit 1 (the Registrar’s administrative record). Respondent’s Exhibit A.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In or around October of 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel her pool for the amount of $8,915.00.
2. Thereafter, Respondent performed remodeling work on Complainant’s pool.
3. On October 15, 2024, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “ROC” or “Registrar”) received a complaint from Complainant alleging poor work on the part of Respondent, in connection with a pool remodeling project.
4. The Registrar assigned the complaint to an investigator for the Registrar, Steven Avila (hereinafter “Investigator Avila”), to investigate the complaint. Investigator Avila began his investigation by scheduling a job-site inspection.
5. On November 5, 2024, Investigator Avila conducted a job-site inspection. During the job-site inspection, Investigator Avila substantiated items 1 and 4 from the complaint.
6. On November 15, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent requiring that Respondent correct Complaint Items 1 and 4 by appropriate means, no later than December 6, 2024. The November 15, 2024 provided, in relevant part, as follows:
............................................
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - The pool plaster was poorly applied. There were rough
places throughout the pool
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were two
locations at the bottom of the pool interior in which dark materials could be
seen embedded in the pool interior finish. An attempt to clean the bottom of
the pool with a pool brush was unsuccessful in removing the item. Upon
rubbing the locations in question with the back side of the pool brush
indentations could be felt. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by
the 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 - Months later they came back to "patch" their holes and
it wasn't the same color plaster, it was gray
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was a repair
patch in the pool that did not match the surrounding white interior of the pool.
The patch appeared as a much darker grayer shade than surrounding pool
finish. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the 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
7. On March 6, 2024, Investigator Avila conducted a compliance job-site inspection. Investigator Avila concluded that Respondent appropriately corrected Complaint Item 1. However, Investigator Avila found that Respondent failed to appropriately correct Complaint Item 4. Investigator Avila’s compliance job-site inspection notes provided, in relevant part, as follows:
..............................................................................
Complaint Item: 1 - The pool plaster was poorly applied. There were rough places throughout the pool
..............................................................................
Compliance Observation: Locations in which there was material present in the bottom of the pool interior was remedied. Patch was barely visible at the time of the compliance inspection.
..............................................................................
Complaint Item: 4 - Months later they came back to "patch" their holes and it wasn't the same color plaster, it was gray
..............................................................................
Compliance Observation: At the time of the compliance inspection an attempted repair was made. The location of the smaller gray patch now contains a more visible larger gray repair. The repair can easily be seen from the pool deck as shown in Compliance photos #4, #5 and #7.
..............................................................................
8. On or about March 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A) (3) (specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154 (22).
9. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
10. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
11. A hearing was held on June 20, 2025.
12. At hearing, Investigator Avila testified regarding his investigation of the complaint. Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Carlos Ramos testified on behalf of Respondent.
13. Investigator Avila testified consistently with his observations and findings as shown in the Directive, and his compliance job-site inspection notes.
14. Mr. Ramos is Respondent’s qualifying party. Mr. Ramos stated that there was a discolored patch in Complainant’s pool that was the result of chemicals hat she used in her pool.
15. Complainant testified that Respondent performed poor work during the pool remodeling project. Complainant disputed Mr. Ramos’s claim her own chemicals caused discoloration to a patch in the pool. Complainant stated that there are two patches in the pool and only one patch was discolored.
16. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on July 9, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on August 25, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent Such prior License record shows that one complaint was resolved by the contractor or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective work order. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline. . Respondent’s license has never been disciplined.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.
2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses and factors in mitigation of the penalty by the same evidentiary standard. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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)
3. Upon review of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law
Judge concludes that Respondent provided insufficient evidence to rebut the credible testimony of Investigator Avila regarding Respondent’s poor work. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3).
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent appropriately corrected Complaint Item 1.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to appropriately correct Complaint Item 4 from the Registrar’s Directive, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent provided insufficient evidence to establish that Complainant caused discoloration to a patch in her pool by using chemicals in her pool.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend License No. 334589 issued to Ramos Pool Plastering & Construction LLC, for two days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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, July 9, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Gale Ellsworth
[email redacted]
Ramos Pool Plastering & Construction LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff