ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-00469-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

David Vasquez,

COMPLAINANT

ICHIBAN SERVICES LLC

DBA: AQUA ALLURE,

License No. ROC 333228,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-00469-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 15, 2025.

APPEARANCES:

For Complainant: David Vasquez

For Respondent: No Appearance

For the Registrar of Contractors: Steven Avila, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibit 1.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Aqua Allure (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 333228 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 3, 2021.

On or about March 7, 2024, David Vasquez (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new pool build.

On or about January 14, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on January 14, 2025, scheduling an inspection for February 10, 2025.

On February 10, 2025, Investigator Avila sent a Formal Close Letter advising that the complaint was closed because Complainant chose to afford Respondent additional time to complete the project based on a timeline of completion provided by Respondent, which was scheduled to be the first week of March 2025.

Investigator Avila issued a new Jobsite Inspection Notice on February 26, 2025, scheduling an inspection for March 17, 2025.

Due to a scheduling conflict, Investigator Avila conducted the jobsite inspection on April 4, 2025, and Respondent’s representative was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 8, 2025 that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 5 - finish putting in the pump.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was no pool equipment installed. The rough plumbing was installed however was terminated in the expected location of the pump and filter. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any. applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B) Building Codes/Prof. Industry Standards

Complaint Item: 6 - finish pergola that was paid for.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was no pergola installed at the intended location. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions. Complainant provided a copy of check 2843 for $2,500 stating it was for the pergola.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B) Building Codes/Prof. Industry Standards

Complaint Item: 7 - finish damaged brick wall.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the block wall was installed and gate was installed and functioning properly. Complainant did bring forth three locations on the gate mounting hardware which was missing the intended bolts. Some damage to block wall near new plumbing allso remianes. 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: 9 - finish pebble tec spray.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the pebble installation had not been started. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

Complaint Item: 10 - finish installing pool materials.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the homeowner stated that this allegation was in reference to the finish plumbing and accessories in the interior of the pool. Rough plumbing can be seen and no returns, drains or suction connections appeared complete at the time of the inspection. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Avila of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2025.

On April 29, 2025, Investigator Avila issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for May 9, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Items 6, 7, 9, and 10 were deemed not completed.

On May 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on May 29, 2025. Respondent’s Answer denied all claims set forth in the Citation and requested a hearing.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On June 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for July 24, 2025.

On July 24, 2025, Complainant requested to continue the hearing.

On or about July 25, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to September 15, 2025. The order granting the continuance 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 September 15, 2025.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be further 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.

Investigator Avila testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, compliance inspection, and the Citation. Investigator Avila further testified that the initial complaint was closed due to Complainant allowing Respondent additional time to complete the project. However, Complainant subsequently contacted Investigator Avila to advise that Respondent had not performed work as promised. Therefore, the complaint was reopened. Investigator Avila also noted that Dan Barnes, a subcontractor of Respondent, attended the jobsite inspection as a representative of Respondent. Neither Respondent nor its representative attended the compliance inspection.

Complainant testified that he signed a contract with Respondent on March 7, 2024, at which time he made a down payment per the contract agreement. Excavation began in June 2024; however, it was not completed at that time. Respondent left and did not return to continue work until November 2024. Complainant further testified that in or around November 2024, the excavation, shotcrete, and decking were completed. During excavation, it was necessary for Respondent to tear down a portion of Complainant’s wall and gate. In replacing the wall and gate, Respondent caused damage and did not complete the repair correctly. Additionally, the pool interior was never completed. Complainant attempted multiple times to contact Respondent and would receive either no response or promises made to finish the work but never honored.

Respondent failed to appear at the Hearing. Respondent’s Answer denied all charges.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 15, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 333228 had been inactive since September 17, 2024; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined case, and nine resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.

Respondent’s inactive license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), specifically regarding Compliance Item 7.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b), specifically regarding Compliance Items 6, 9, and 10.

The preponderance of the evidence 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 Respondent’s License No. 333228.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 23, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

ICHIBAN SERVICES LLC

DBA: AQUA ALLURE

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

David Vasquez

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff