ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-12601-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jacquelyn French

COMPLAINANT,

Navlin Inc

DBA: Abbey Flooring Center,

License No. ROC 169908,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-12601-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 13, 2025 with the record held open until March 16, 2025 to allow Respondent the opportunity to submit additional evidence.

APPEARANCES: Jacquelyn French (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. Navidad Abedian appeared on behalf of Navlin, Inc. (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On March 25, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter

Registrar” or “ROC”), issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on May 13, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

2. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the

charges made in the Citation and Complaint. Through the Citation, the ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Arizona Revised Statutes (hereinafter “A.R.S.”) §§ 32- 1154(A)(3) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (hereinafter “A.A.C.” R4-9-108(A).

3. On or about June 11, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract wherein Respondent agreed to replace the carpet in a house owned by Complainant the amount of $4,280. Complainant paid Respondent in full for the project.

4. On or about July 8, 2024, Respondent started work.

5. On or about July 10, 2024, Respondent stopped work.

6. On or about November 13, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint with the ROC alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.

7. On or about February 10, 2025, ROC Investigator Gregory Johndrow conducted a job-site inspection.

8. On February 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive directing Respondent to complete the following complaint item by appropriate means, no later than Friday, March 11, 2025:

Complaint Item 1: “Carpet is coming loose near walls and other edges in all rooms and closets.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The complainant pointed out and showed the carpet is loose at the tile transitions, around the door jamb of the master closet, along the tub in the master bathroom, below the window in the master bedroom, around the jamb of the front hall closet and in the front bedroom. The respondent shall correct these locations and all other areas with identical issues.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 2: “Defective carpet appearing as seams and or run lines in living room, family room, halls, den, master bedroom”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Based on the preponderance of evidence presented at the site inspection, the two areas of torn carpet in the family room/hall and the master bedroom were more probably than not caused during the installation, on subsequent return visits or as a defect in the carpet. The respondent shall make the necessary corrections in these locations.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 3: “improper carpet seams in master bedroom.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.

The carpet seams in the master bedroom are within minimum standards.

The seams are good in appearance from a standing position with some normal visibility.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 4: “carpet seams throughout house appear to be done improperly”

The carpet seams are within minimum standards.

The seams are good in appearance from a standing position with some normal visibility.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 5: “Tack Strips not replaced as needed ie. master bath.”

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 6: “Independent third party installer pointed much of the defects and referred us to ROC”

Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

Governing Rule: N/A

9. Respondent failed to comply with the Directive.

10. On March 20, 2025, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and (22); A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

11. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.

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

13. At hearing, Investigator Johndrow testified regarding this investigation of the complaint. Complainant testified on behalf of herself and presented the testimony of her tenant, Sheridan Davis and Barnaby Rob.

14. Investigator Johndrow testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes. Investigator Johndrow determined in his investigation that Respondent performed no work under the Directive after it was issued. Investigator Johndrow explained that he reviewed a video that was sent to him by Mr. Abedian. The video showed that the defects in the carpet immediately after installation. Investigator Johndrow explained that similar defects also existed in the master bedroom which Respondent did not deny.

15. Ms. Davis resides in the home owned by Complainant where Respondent performed work.

Ms. Davis noticed a visible seam in the carpet, in a high traffic area of the home, on the first day that she came home after the carpet installation. Respondent sent a worker to repair the problem. The worker pulled up the carpet and Ms. Davis could stick her hand underneath it. The worker left the carpet in that condition. Ms. Davis covered the area with a rug to avoid a trip hazard. Ms. Davis vacuumed the area about two to three times a week.

16. Mr. Rob explained that he visited the home after the complaint was filed. Mr. Rob noticed an area that was covered to prevent a trip hazard. The carpet had two parallel lines where the seam was located. In the master bedroom, the carpet was coming away from the wall.

17. Mr. Abedian asserted that after installation, there was no tear in the carpet but only a seam. Mr. Abedian stated that Complainant was happy with the work Respondent performed.

18. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on June 5, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on February 12, 2002, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there are two open complaints against Respondent. Such prior License record also shows that one complaint was resolved or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 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 A.A.C. 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. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.

5. 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, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).

6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 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 Navlin, Inc. DBA: Abbey Flooring Center, License No. ROC 169908 for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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 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, June 5, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Jacquelyn French

[email redacted]

Navlin Inc

DBA: Abbey Flooring Center,

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff