ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04882-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
EMPEROR POOLS LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Water Rock Pools and Excavation LLC,
License No. ROC 334407,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-04882-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING SESSION: August 22, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Tara Jarrett and Matthew Jarrett appeared for Emperor Pools LLC. Zachary Causer appeared for Water Rock Pools and Excavation LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant Exhibit 1. _____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Water Rock Pools and Excavation LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 334407, B-5 General Swimming Pool Contractor, issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) on August 16, 2021.
On May 13, 2025, Emperor Pools LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form (“Complaint”) with the ROC against Respondent alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant for work performed on a residential pool project in Paradise Valley, Arizona.
In the Complaint, Complainant alleged that two invoices in the total amount of $16,169.00 remained unpaid.
On June 16, 2025, ROC issued a Citation in this matter, citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (Ariz. Rev. Stat.) § 32-1154(A)(10), failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.
On July 2, 2025, Respondent filed its Answer to the Citation, providing text messages regarding the project, which indicated that the homeowner “terminated” his contract with Respondent alleging Respondent’s “multiple material breaches.” Respondent characterized the cause of the termination being that Complainant’s “repair work was not up to [the homeowners’] standards.”
The matter was not resolved between Complainant and Respondent, and the ROC subsequently set the matter for administrative hearing.
On July 15, 2025, ROC issued a Notice of Hearing in this matter setting the hearing for August 22, 2025.
BACKGROUND
Respondent reached out to Complainant to provide an estimate for the pebble-tech interior finish of a pool and spa. After Respondent approved the estimate, Complainant performed the work on February 14, 2025.
During the finishing work, water began to leak through the finish; it was discovered to be a water leak through the pool shell caused by a different subcontractor having accidentally clipping a water line in the backyard.
Complainant invoiced Respondent on February 14, 2025 for the interior finish work. The terms called for payment on receipt.
Due to the leak, the pool was not able to be filled at the time and it was over 30 days until the water leak and pool shell were repaired, resulting in Complainant being unable to patch-repair the interior finish at that shell location until March 19, 2025.
Complainant invoiced Respondent on March 20, 2025 for the repair work. The terms called for payment on receipt.
The homeowner was later dissatisfied with the appearance of the patch and, on April 2, 2025, terminated his contract with Respondent.
The matter was not resolved between the parties and Complainant filed the Complaint.
At hearing, Ms. Jarrett testified regarding the timeline and the work that was completed, noting that the water leak issue had not been caused by Complainant and that the pool was not filled at the time of the finish being installed due to the water leak.
Mr. Jarrett explained that the interior of the pool finish is a “cement” which has to be covered with water in order to cure and that, absent the water, the finish would become discolored. Mr. Jarrett further indicated that, in these circumstances, a repair-patch in the finish would simply not match the previously installed finish.
At hearing, Mr. Causer agreed with the timeline of events and agreed that the water leak was not Complainant’s fault. Mr. Causer testified that he was adamant with Complainant that the repair patch had to look good, and he felt it could have been done better. Mr. Causer recalled that there had been some rain in the interim period but did not dispute that the pool could not be filled without the water leak being repaired. Mr. Causer testified that he wanted to have the pool filled but his engineer had advised not to because that might cause the pool structure to fail.
Mr. Causer testified that the homeowner was not happy with the results and told Respondent not to come back to the project. Mr. Causer stated that the homeowner then refused to talk to him, and that Ms. Jarrett had tried to assist in the matter by speaking with the homeowner about the finish issue. Mr. Causer indicated, however, that had not turned out to resolve the matter with the homeowner.
The hearing record does not contain any information regarding the details or full extent of Respondent’s contract, or the price of the project/contract, with the homeowner. Mr. Causer testified that the homeowner still owes $34,000.00 to Respondent. Mr. Causer indicated Respondent had received a deposit and that a third draw was to be payment for finishing and any change orders.
Complainant’s position is that the work was completed and they should be paid for their work.
At hearing, Ms. Jarrett stated that they just want to be paid for the interior finish work. Complainant’s Invoice #2218, dated February 14, 2025, for the interior finish work, versus the patch repair work, was $13,989.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution is ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of 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.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1156.01 states, in pertinent part, that after a hearing an Administrative Law Judge may provide restitution to any person who is injured by an action of a licensee.
The hearing record demonstrates that Respondent engaged Complainant to install the pebble-tech interior finish at this residential pool project and then approved the estimate for that work. The hearing record further demonstrated that Complainant performed the work for which it had been engaged along with subsequent repair work that was not of their own making. The hearing record demonstrated that Complainant invoiced Respondent for the work and that Respondent has not yet paid Complainant for the invoiced work.
Therefore, the only issue remaining is whether Respondent raised a sufficient justification for failing to tender payment to Complainant when invoiced for the work performed. Respondent bears the burden to establish a sufficient justification under the applicable statue for nonpayment.
While Mr. Causer testified that the homeowner owes Respondent $34,000.00, Respondent failed to demonstrate both that it lacks the capacity to pay Complainant the monies owed to Complainant and that it has not been paid for the work which Complainant performed.
Based on the foregoing, Complainant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10). Therefore, Complainant also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s ROC License No. 334407.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that fifteen (15) calendar days from the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Water Rock Pools and Excavation LLC’s License No. 334407 shall be suspended until Respondent provides the Registrar with sufficient proof that $13,989.00 has been tendered to Complainant in certified funds.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that after the Registrar has received Respondent’s proof of payment to Complainant, Complaint No. 2025-04882 may be closed.
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, September 16, 2025.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
EMPEROR POOLS LLC
8414 E Virginia Ave
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
[email redacted]
Water Rock Pools and Excavation LLC
7117 E Orange Blossom Ln
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff