ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2024A-11513-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Pam Marie Caviness,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Daniel Cerniglia
License No. ROC 341571,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-11513-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 21, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Pam Caviness appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Daniel Cerniglia appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors with witness Erika Hoskin.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: State’s Exhibits 1 through 10.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
On November 4, 2022, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) issued License No. ROC 341517 to Daniel Cerniglia (“Respondent”). On or about June 19, 2025, the license underwent discipline and was revoked.
On or about October 12, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging, among other things, poor work (“the workmanship complaint”).
As a result of the workmanship complaint, on December 19, 2024, the Registrar through Investigator Mike Wiskow issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. An administrative hearing was held. Respondent failed to appear for this hearing. In the March 14, 2025 Decision, Administrative Law Judge Stone considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded, among other things, that “the Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), (12) and (22).”
On or about April 8, 2025, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order finding the violations and imposing a $500.00 civil penalty.
Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“the Fund”) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project.
On May 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $27,758.05. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative payout.
On July 24, 2025, the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) for an evidentiary hearing.
A hearing was held on August 21, 2025 at 9:00am.
Hearing Evidence
The Written Directive from the Registrar specified the following in pertinent part:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A). . . .
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Spare bath improperly grouted, pinholes thru out.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There are pin holes in the grout in the guest bath. There should not be pinholes in the grout. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 - Master shower not draining, sloped wrong Schluter edges not flush or even
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The shower is incomplete and does not slope properly. The water should slope to the drain. The shower should be completed. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 3 - Red guard not used on any of the walls in master shower Floor in master bath has pinholes throughout
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Wet areas in a room should be waterproofed. Waterproofing is required above the shower head. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 4 - Glue from his finger prints throughout the entire 2400 sq ft of new wood floors
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There are glue fingerprints on the floor. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 5 - Several spots in the floors where they aren’t glued down properly, hollow sound and raised.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The flooring is hollow in some spots. The glued down floor should not be pulling up. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 6 - Schluter edge in shampoo niche not lined up flush in spare bath
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The metal edge corners in the guest bath are unsightly and the tile cuts are chipped at the cut out. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 7 - Pinholes throughout grout in master bath walls
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There are pin holes in the grout in the Master bath walls. There should not be pinholes in the grout. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 8 - Schluter edges not flush or even in master bath
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The metal edge corners in the Master bath are unsightly and the tile cuts are chipped at the cut out. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 9 - Floor in master bath has pinholes throughout the floor
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There are pin holes in the grout in the Master bath floor. There should not be pinholes in the grout. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 10 - Gaps in floors at all doors.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The doorways were not undercut. Contractor should confirm any gaps in the floor installation and repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Erika Hoskin, Claims Reviewer for the Fund, testified that she reviewed the Directive from the Registrar that had been issued, Judge Stone’s March 14, 2025, Administrative Decision regarding the underlying complaint, and bids submitted by Complainant in calculating Complainant’s actual damages. Ms. Hoskin consulted with Investigator Wiskow and concluded that the lowest bid from the Lantern Group Contracting company for the flooring and tile, less the shower doors was the appropriate bid.
Respondent argued that the only items that needed repair were the shower pan and the floor tile which would cost around $1,600.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
An award from the residential contractors' recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor's violation. Actual damages:
1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.
2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.
Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.
A preponderance of the evidence means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
Respondent had an opportunity to correct the faulty work following the written directive from the Registrar and failed to do so. In addition, Respondent failed to appear at the workmanship hearing to contest any of these matters.
Therefore, after review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the award provided by the Fund accurately reflected Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is accordingly entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $27,758.05.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
It is Recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $27,758.05.
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.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, September 4, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Daniel Cerniglia
18291 N Pima Road #100-325
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
[email redacted]
Mona Baskin Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
Licensing & Enforcement Section
2005 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[email redacted]
Pam Marie Caviness
5652 E Acoma Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff