ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-12883-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Mark Smith Simmons,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

TILY POOLS, LLC,

License No. ROC 328735,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-12883-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 18, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Mark Smith Simmons appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Tily Pools, LLC failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None

Procedural History

The hearing of this matter was scheduled to convene on May 9, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Mark Smith Simmons (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. Juan Parilla appeared on behalf of Tily Pools, LLC (“Respondent”). Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared as a witness.

The parties participated in a prehearing discussion outside of the presence of the Administrative Law Judge. Following that discussion, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had entered into a settlement agreement, however, needed additional time in which to execute the terms of the agreement. The parties requested that the matter be set for a written status update in three months. The request was granted.

On May 12, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Granting Continuance and Setting Status Date, continuing the hearing and setting the matter for a written Status Update on August 11, 2025.

On June 5, 2025, Complainant filed a Status Update with the Tribunal, indicating that the matter could not be resolved. Consequently, on June 5, 2025, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order Granting Continuance, advising the parties of the continued hearing date and time of June 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. That Order contained the Google Meet information to participate in the hearing by video or phone.

On the date and at the time set for continued hearing, Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Investigator Riddlehoover was also present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Respondent is the holder of License Number 328735 issued by the Registrar.

On or about May 1, 2024, Complainant contracted with Respondent to resurface the pool, replace the pumps, filter, and water heater at Complainant’s home. The contract price was $20,600.00.

On or about November 19, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and failure to honor the warranty with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Riddlehoover. After a January 7, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Riddlehoover issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated January 15, 2025, 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, January 31, 2025.

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 1 - contractor broke the South side pool return nozzle off.

Investigator’s Observation: During our JSI inspection I observed the south side return nozzle was broken. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 2 - contractor cracked the top step collar of the in ground floor cleaning system

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was noted that the step collar had been damaged my mechanical means and was cracked. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 - He told me that he would come back and add two inline check valves

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant has stated that there is a verbal agreement between the Complainant and Respondent to add two inline check valves. During inspection, the complaint item was not yet completed. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

All errors in original.

On February 3, 2025, Complainant filed an Addendum to the Complaint. Consequently, on February 6, 2025, Investigator Riddlehoover conducted a second Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Riddlehoover issued an Amended Written Directive to Respondent dated February 10, 2025, 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 Wednesday, February 26, 2025.

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 1 - contractor broke the South side pool return nozzle off.

Investigator’s Observation: During our JSI inspection I observed the south side return nozzle was broken. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 2 - contractor cracked the top step collar of the in ground floor cleaning system

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was noted that the step collar had been damaged my mechanical means and was cracked. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 - He told me that he would come back and add two inline check valves

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant has stated that there is a verbal agreement between the Complainant and Respondent to add two inline check valves. During inspection, the complaint item was not yet completed. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 - A1. Top step collar is spa cracked.

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was noted that the step collar had been damaged my mechanical means and was cracked. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - A2. Spa return collar leaking

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was noted that the spa return collar was leaking. The Complainant submitted a leak detection report to verify this allegation as it could not be observed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - A3. Two spa pop up return collars leaking

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was noted that the spa popup return collars may be leaking. The Complainant submitted a leak detection report to verify this allegation as it could not be observed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7 - A4. Pop up in N.E. corner of pool leaking

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was noted that the pool popup in the NE corner may be leaking. The Complainant submitted a leak detection report to verify this allegation as it could not be observed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

All errors in original.

On February 27, 2025, after the deadline for compliance with the Amended Written Directive, Investigator Riddlehoover ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Registrar’s Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Riddlehoover forwarded the matter 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), 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 Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Riddlehoover testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directives.

Complainant testified that he agreed with Investigator Riddlehoover’s findings and the Directives. Complainant testified that after the initial Written Directive was issued, he noticed that the pool was “losing water below the return.” Complainant hired a leak detection company, a representative of which was present when Investigator Riddlehoover conducted the second Jobsite Inspection.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 30, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 328735 was first issued on May 5, 2020, and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no 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 credible evidence of record 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 did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directives and Respondent did not establish, as an affirmative defense, that valid justification for such failure existed. 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 Number 328735 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, July 1, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

TILY POOLS, LLC

[email redacted]

Mark Smith Simmons

[email redacted]

Charles Riddlehoover

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff