ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-12414-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arivazhahan Swaminathan,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Aqua Group LLC,
License No. ROC 311651,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-12414-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 8, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Arivazhahan Swaminathan appeared on his own behalf. Daniel Henderson appeared on behalf of Respondent Aqua Group LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Doug Barrett appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Aqua Group LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 311651 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about August 7, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to construct a pool at its residence in Paradise Valley, Arizona.
On or about November 27, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Doug Barrett.
On December 11, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging a possible violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
On or about December 26, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about January 26, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 26, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Barrett testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Investigator Barrett testified that the pool was at the shotcrete phase when work had stopped. He also testified that Respondent’s license had been revoked by the time the Complaint was filed, thus there was no Written Directive issued and the matter went straight to the legal department for citation.
Complainant testified that he paid over the contracted price and no pool equipment had been installed, and the pool was incomplete. Further, Complainant testified that Mr. Henderson was had to communicate with as messages would often go unanswered.
Mr. Henderson testified that the pool was delayed due to a retaining wall which was erected on the property which conflicted with the pool design. Mr. Henderson also testified that he was paid for all work performed, and that Complainant wanted him to finish work out of his own pocket.
Further, Mr. Henderson was adamant that there was no abandonment, as there were significant delays in obtaining the necessary permit, as well as the changes to the pool engineering.
Mr. Henderson also testified that he had to close his business due to his health issues.
Finally, Mr. Henderson testified that he went well out of his was to help Complainant complete the project, even though he was no longer in business, and did much work outside of his scope.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior license record on April 22, 2026. Such prior license record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 311651 was first issued on February 28, 2017. The license record also reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and four disciplined cases. The license record further reflected that Respondent’s license was suspended on April 1, 2025, revoked on March 11, 2025, June 17, 2025, and again on July 31, 2025.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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 established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), as the project was not completed as the contract was paid in full, including extra amounts. The tribunal does not find Respondent’s defense to the allegations to be persuasive that he did not abandon the project as he admitted that he closed his business before the project was completed, and, at least from the evidence presented, did not offer any financial resolution to the matter.
The tribunal further declines to provide restitution in this matter, at this time, as it believes that another forum may be more appropriate for the same.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Nos. 311651.
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, April 22, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Aqua Group LLC
[email redacted]
Arivazhahan Swaminathan
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff