ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02753-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Zachary Sharp

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Innovative Pool Systems LLC,

License No. ROC 353146,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02753-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 10, 2025

APPEARANCES: Zachary Sharp (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of himself. David Covarrubias appeared on behalf of Respondent (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On July 10, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter “Registrar” or

“ROC”), issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on August 12, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter “OAH”) in Phoenix, Arizona.

2. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the

charges made in the Citation and Complaint. Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3) (specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A)); Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32- 1154(A) (9) (a) and (c), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A) (22).

3. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.

4. Respondent holds license number 353146 issued by the Registrar.

5. Respondent’s qualifying party is David Covarrubias.

6. On or about September 17, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a pool construction contract for the amount of $12,088.00.

7. On or about September 17, 2024, Respondent began work under the

contract.

8. On or about October 22, 2024, Respondent stopped work.

9. On or about March 18, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint from Complainant alleging poor workmanship and abandonment on the part of Respondent.

10. The Registrar assigned the complaint to James Carter, an investigator for the Registrar, (hereinafter “Investigator Carter”).

11. Investigator Carter called Mr. Covarrubias to inform him of the complaint. Mr. Covarrubias confirmed that he was Respondent’s qualifying party.

12. After Investigator Carter informed Mr. Covarrubias of the complaint,

Mr. Covarrubias said that he was unfamiliar with the project and knew nothing about it. Investigator Carter told Mr. Covarrubias that Edward Mendoza was involved with the project. Mr. Covarrubias stated that Mr. Mendoza worked for him. Mr. Covarrubias joined Mr. Mendoza into the call with Investigator Carter. Investigator Carter explained to Mr. Mendoza that there were two contracts, one with Respondent’s name and ROC number, and the other contract had a different business name and a fictitious ROC number. Mr. Mendoza stated that his contract with Complainant was verbal.

13. Shortly after Investigator Carter’s call with Mr. Mendoza and

Mr. Covarrubias, Mr. Covarrubias called Investigator Carter and informed him that Mr. Mendoza did not work with Innovative on the project. However, Mr. Mendoza was not licensed to perform the project. Mr. Covarrubias stated that he was willing to take the complaint as his own to prevent Mr. Mendoza form having trouble with the ROC.

14. On or about April 17, 2025, Investigator Carter conducted a jobsite inspection.

15. Mr. Mendoza was present at the jobsite inspection. Mr. Mendoza told Investigator Carter that he was not an employee of Respondent but he worked for Respondent “in a 1099 capacity”. Mr. Mendoza told Investigator Carter that his role was to find jobs and if Respondent did not believe the job would be profitable, Mr. Mendoza would take the job himself.

16. On April 17, 2025, Investigator Carter issued a Directive.

17. The April 17, 2025 Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar has substantiated that your work fails to meet minimum workmanship standards (see A.A.C. R4-9-108). 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 May 9, 2025.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Pool Tile incorrectly installed, uneven installation in a

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator verified that the

waterline tiles from about the center of the cascade going east are uneven and drop as the line goes on. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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: 2 - Pool water feature cascade incorrectly installed,

causing water to not flow evenly.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed a section of the metal on the cascade waterfall that was damaged causing a deviation in the flow of the water from the waterfall. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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: 3 - Pool coping not grouted entirely, work abandoned and grouting not finished

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Grouting was not completed on the

second row of the coping on the southside of the pool. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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 - Water feature wall not grouted completely

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator verified that the grout

was not completed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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: 5 - Fire bowls never installed, gas lines never ran.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator verified that the fire

bowls were not installed. Bowls are on site. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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: 6 - Gas line never hooked up, and tested for function with fire bowls.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Gas lines for the bowls have not been connected. Per Complainant permit has passed with the local municipality. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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: 7 - Marble caps never installed for the fire bowl pedestals.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator confirmed that marble

caps are on site but not installed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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: 8 - Spa Area tiles falling off, not grouted correctly.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed that the tile

edges around the spa have fallen off. Pieces are still on site. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

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

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: -

Investigator’s Observation:

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

18. Respondent failed to comply with the Directive.

19. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.

20. The matter was referred to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

21. A hearing was held on October 30, 2025.

22. At hearing, Investigator Carter testified regarding his investigation of the complaint, the job site inspections, and the issuance of the Directive. Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Mr. Covarrubias and Mr. Mendoza testified on behalf of Respondent.

23. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work in connection with the pool construction contract. Mr. Mendoza asserted that he did everything to please Complainant and that Complainant delayed the project for 12 weeks.

24. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on March 30, 2020, Respondent’s license was first issued on July 2, 2024, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there are two open complaints against Respondent’s license. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. 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)

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent aided and

abetted an unlicensed person, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(9)(a).

5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent allowed an unlicensed person to use its license, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(9)(c).

6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 License No. 3531466 issued to Respondent Innovative Pool Systems, for five days. 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. 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. sections 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, October 30, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Zachary Sharp

[email redacted]

Innovative Pool Systems LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff