ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-11782-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Kevin Lawson,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Aqua Group LLC
License No. ROC 311651,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-11782-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 26, 2025 at 1:00pm and April 15, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Kevin Lawson, Complainant. James Carter on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contactors Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Aqua Group LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 311651 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about July 5, 2024, Kevin Lawson (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a residential swimming pool remodel in Waddell, Arizona. The contract failed to include the name of Respondent, the date of the contract, the estimated date of completion, the total amount due on the project, a schedule of payments, or an advisement that Complainant had the right to file a complaint with the Registrar with respect to the work.
On July 10, 2024, work started on the project. The total contract amount was $15,507.00 and Complainant paid $11,975.00 prior to work stopping on August 23, 2024. The old Pebble Tec was removed in early August 2024 and the new Pebble Tec was never installed. Complainant made multiple attempts to see when Respondent would finish the job, but Respondent never came back to the jobsite.
On or about October 28, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Carter. On November 18, 2024, a jobsite inspection was scheduled. Respondent was not present at the jobsite inspection.
On November 18, 2024, Investigator Carter sent Respondent a warning letter regarding its contract and how it did not meet minimum elements per statute.
On November 18, 2024, following the jobsite inspection, Investigator Carter 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 Monday, December 9, 2024.
. . . .
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 – plaster finish not applied to pool as contracted
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed that the interior of the pool has not been completed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.
Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent did not come back to the jobsite. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Carter was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On December 13, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On January 3, 2025, the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On January 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00pm on February 26, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. On January 30, 2025, a Google Meet order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 26, 2025, whereby Complainant and Investigator Carter appeared. Respondent did not appear at the hearing.
Sometime after the February 26, 2025 hearing, Respondent called the Office of Administrative Hearings and this note was provided by staff, “Dan Henderson called and stated he though[t] the hearing was on the 2/27 but then he looked on the order and it was today 2/26 and would like to reschedule.”
On March 6, 2025, an Order: Further Hearing and Google Meet Link for Virtual Appearance was emailed out to the parties apprising them of the continued hearing scheduled on April 15, 2025 at 9:00am. At the April 15, 2025 hearing, Complainant appeared, but Respondent did not appear. The Administrative Law Judge delayed the start of the hearing until 9:15am and then concluded the matter. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Carter testified on October 29, 2024, he spoke with Respondent, however, Respondent did not show up at the jobsite inspection. The day of the jobsite inspection, on November 18, 2024, Investigator Carter received a voicemail from Respondent’s representative who stated he had an out-of-town family emergency and would not be able to attend the jobsite inspection. Investigator Carter testified that there was way more work that needed to be done besides the plaster and Pebble Tec. At hearing, Investigator Carter went over the contract and pointed out all of the deficiencies in the document that included numerous scribbles.
Complainant testified how he got the run around and how Respondent abandoned the job and left the pool worse off than its original state. Complainant tried to reach out to Respondent many times before filing a complaint, to no avail.
Daniel Henderson, Qualifying Party for Respondent, provided a written answer to the Registrar on December 30, 2024, whereby he stated that his “firm has not abandoned the job.”
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on May 5, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 311651 was first issued on February 28, 2017, and was revoked on March 11, 2025. Such prior License record also reflects there are two open complaints, three resolved/settled complaints, and two complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
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.
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.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, the evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).
Furthermore, 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
In addition, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. ROC 311651.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
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 5, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Kevin Lawson
15411 W Waddell Rd 102-133
Surprise, AZ 85379
[email redacted]
Aqua Group LLC
26618 N 59th Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85083
[email redacted]
James Carter
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff