ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04539-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Ruchi Jain,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Lavender Landscape Design Co. LLC,
License No. ROC 326465 and
License No. ROC 334560,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-04539-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 17, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Ruchi Jain (“Complainant”) represented herself. Tyler Tew represented Lavendar Landscape Design Co. LLC (“Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 11.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) issued two licenses to Respondent: ROC license number 326465 and license number 334560.
2. On September 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing to be conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) in Phoenix, Arizona.
3. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the ROC Citation and Complaint (“Citation”). Through the Citation, the ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically, Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-108(A) and (B); and, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
4. An ROC Citation indicates that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may issue discipline (suspension or revocation) and monetary penalty on Respondent’s license.
5. On or about April 4, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a construction contract for a residential custom landscaping project including pool and equipment and plumbing, masonry work, turf, irrigation, plantings, and more, at Complainant’s home.
6. On or about April 4, 2024, Respondent began work.
7. On or about April 24, 2025, Respondent stopped work.
8. On or about May 6, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) with the ROC alleging multiple issues with work that Respondent had performed and Respondent’s failure to have completed multiple portions of the contract work on the entire project.
9. The ROC assigned the Complaint to Investigator Mark Nipp.
10. On June 3, 2025, Inv. Nipp conducted a job-site inspection regarding the multiple items listed in the Complaint.
11. On June 6, 2025, Inv. Nipp issued a Written Directive (“Directive”) to Respondent, directing Respondent to correct the stated items 1 through 3, by appropriate means, no later than June 27, 2025. The corrective deadline was subsequently extended to August 1, 2025.
12. On August 28, 2025, Inv. Nipp conducted a compliance jobsite inspection regarding the multiple items listed in the Directive. Inv. Nipp Melton found that only a few items were partially corrected and, overall, that the Directive items remained uncorrected and the custom landscaping project remained incomplete.
13. On September 3, 2025, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and (B); and, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
14. On September 16, 2025, Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
15. The matter was subsequently referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
16. At hearing, Inv. Nipp testified in support of his jobsite inspections and Directive items, noting that the project was incomplete and had workmanship issues.
17. At hearing, Mr. Tew testified that this was one of a few projects that Respondent had retained at the time Respondent filed for Bankruptcy, in the expectation that it would complete the project through, at times, receiving permission from Bankruptcy Court to expend monies on the project. Respondent stated that the project had not been sold correctly and had not been profitable due to former employees giving “credits” against the project, specifically referencing a $17,000.00 credit. Respondent stated that the pool turned out to be an entire destruction and re-dig, rather than a remodel, which meant that the funds being paid by Complainant did not cover the costs of the project. Respondent argued, essentially, that the project ran out of money before it was completed.
18. Complainant testified that Mr. Tew himself had approved $17,000.00 credit and that he had been involved in all stages of the project plans and the contract. Complainant noted that at the point when they had paid over $130,000.00, they told Respondent they would refuse to pay invoices until more work was done; however, Complainant then continued to pay on the weekly invoices after a lien had been filed on the project. Complainant stated that the contract included the demolition of the existing pool.
19. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website on November 19, 2025. Respondent’s License No. 326465 was issued on October 8, 2019; the license has 2 open complaints, 5 resolved/settled complaints, and one disciplined case (2024). Respondent’s License No. 334560 was issued on August 23, 2021; the license has 4 open complaints, and 5 resolved/settled complaints.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101 et seq.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative record regarding Respondent’s license. See Ariz. Admin. Code R9-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the contracted-for work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108.
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
correct the items listed in the ROC’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Final Order, the ROC shall suspend Lavender Landscape Design Co. LLC License No. 326465 for ten (10) days and shall suspend Lavender Landscape Design Co. LLC License No. 334560 for ten (10) 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 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, December 19, 2025.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Mark Nipp
[email redacted]
Lavender Landscape Design Co. LLC
[email redacted]
Ruchi Jain
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff