ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05107-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Eric Solvesky

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Continental Pool Builders LLC,

License No. ROC 352417,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-05107-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 17, 2025

APPEARANCES: Eric Solvesky (Complainant) appeared on behalf of himself. Christian T. Lestinsky, Esq. appeared on behalf of Continental Pool Builders LLC (Respondent).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 11a through 11d, 12, 17, 22a and 22b, and 23.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On September 6, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a new pool construction and backyard landscaping contract for the amount of $59,840.00.

On or about November 24, 2024, Respondent started work.

On or about April 10, 2025, Respondent stopped work.

On or about May 23, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging poor workmanship and abandonment on the part of Respondent.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Todd Anderson, an investigator for the Registrar (hereinafter “Investigator Anderson”).

Investigator Anderson scheduled an initial job-site inspection for June 16, 2025. At the job-site inspection, Investigator Anderson noticed that work was still in progress and it appeared both parties were partially responsible for the delays.

On or about June 23, 2025, the Registrar closed the complaint.

From June 26, 2025 to July 3, 2025, Investigator Anderson received several phone calls from complainant that very little work had been performed since the initial job-site inspection.

On July 22, 2025, Investigator Anderson conducted a second job-site inspection. determined little or no work had been completed.

On July 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive that provided, in relevant part, as follows:

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

Complaint Item: - Continental Pool Builders promised completion of this project

within 3 months. It is not complete 6 months later. There have been several periods where we go for a week with no communication. The pool is still concrete; the tile and pebble finish are yet to be completed. Tile deck and patio have not been completed. Drains have not been installed. Turf has not been installed. Pavers on side yard have not been installed. Paver path from gate to driveway have not been installed. Damaged stucco at back patio has not been repaired. Landscape rock in front yard has not been replaced. Block wall at side of house has not been painted.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

The contract was signed on September 6th, 2024.

Total contract amount: $59,840.00

Total amount paid to the contractor: $53,856.00

Scope of work still in need of completion:

• Complete installation of Pavers on patio, pool deck, and coping.

• Install Deco Drains.

• Install turf around back and side yards.

• Install Pavers on east side yard.

• Install Pavers from side gate to driveway.

• Repair damaged stucco on north-east corner of residence just above the Weep

Screed.

• Install Landscape Rock in front yard to the east of the Driveway.

• Paint block wall at side of house.

• Pool interior surface.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3): 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.

The due date to perform corrective work under the Directive was August 14, 2025.

Respondent failed to correct the items listed in the Directive by the due date.

The Registrar subsequently issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on December 17, 2025.

At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Nicholas Soldo, the owner of Respondent, testified on behalf of Respondent.

Complainant informed Soldo on several occasions that communication was important. Complainant stated that no written change orders were submitted for additional payments. Complainant also stated that there was no payment schedule.

Soldo alleged that near the time of the issuance of the Directive, Complainant submitted bad reviews of Respondent online and on social media sites. Soldo alleged that Complainant conspired with others to post the reviews. Soldo stated that he was unsure whether Complainant would pay the remainder of the contract and required that Complainant give him guarantees of payment before it would perform any corrective work under the Directive. Soldo also alleged that Respondent lost earnings due to the negative reviews.

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 use due

diligence to complete the project. 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).

9. Respondent presented insufficient evidence to establish that it had a valid justification for failing to comply with the Directive. 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. 352417 issued to Continental Pool Builders LLC, 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. section 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, January 6, 2026.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Eric Solvesky

[email redacted]

Christian T. Lestinsky, Esq.

LANG THAL KING & HANSON PC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff