ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06640-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lana Ward,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

DNAW LLC

DBA: Az flooring by Daniel,

License No. ROC 346014,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-06640-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 4, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Lana Ward appeared on her own behalf. Investigator David Fagerburg appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

DNAW, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 346014, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on July 3, 2023. Respondent’s license was a CR8 Floor Covering license and this classification allows the scopes of work permitted by the commercial C-8 Floor Covering and the residential R-8 Floor Covering licenses.

On or about September 28, 2023, Lana Ward (“Complainant”) entered into an oral agreement with Respondent for, among other things, the installation of a luxury vinyl plank flooring system. The agreed amount to complete the work was $2,400.00 and Complainant paid Respondent, $2,510.00.

On or about July 7, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. On July 18, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg issued a warning letter to Respondent in regards to a lack of a written contract.

On August 28, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg conducted a jobsite inspection, Respondent was not present.

On September 9, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 29, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Investigator Note:

1: Upon reviewing the written statement submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there was no written contract provided by the respondent violating ARS §32-1158

(A) Minimum elements of a contract. Warning letter issued.

Complaint Narrative: I called Daniel around the date of Sep 26, 2024 to tell him that the flooring was starting to come up. He was in Alaska helping his mother but would call when he returned. Since then he has put me off with one excuse after another. He was supposed to come by June 24, 2025, to talk about how we can fix the floor but never showed up.

Complaint Item 1: Vinyl Plank flooring is coming up

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the entry, kitchen, dining room, family room, office, hallway, laundry room and primary bedroom I observed a floating luxury vinyl plank flooring system installed. The majority of the flooring that is coming up, lifting and separating at the joints is in the family room and primary bedroom. See P (3) thru P (18). During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me left over materials in the garage with the product identification on the unused boxes. See P (19) thru P (21). The complainant stated that after the respondent started the installation the complainant did not like the feel of the flooring when walked on and requested the respondent install an underlayment which it appears was installed. See P (12) and P (13). Upon further investigation based on the product details and specifications the Edwards Oak Waterproof Rigid Core Click Lock Luxury Vinyl Plank Flooring can be installed directly onto concrete, Cork Underlayment, Plywood, Tile and Vinyl and comes with a pre-attached underlayment. The respondent shall determine cause and correct the vinyl plank flooring that is coming up, lifting and separating throughout by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (2) (A) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications, ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Additional Requirements:

The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a written contract to this investigator that includes all 9 minimum elements of a contract over $1,000.00 per ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract by Monday September 29, 2025.

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Fagerburg was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On September 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely 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).

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On October 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00pm on December 4, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

On November 7, 2025, an order from OAH advised the parties on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet for virtual or telephonic appearance. The hearing was held via Google Meet on December 4, 2025 at 1:00pm.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Fagerburg testified that on or about September 30, 2025, he received a phone call from Respondent who stated that they had been out of town and the company did not have the finances to purchase new flooring to correct Complainant’s project. Investigator Fagerburg verified that he had Respondent’s proper email address.

Complainant testified that prior to the installation of the flooring, that Respondent was aware that her husband utilized an electric scooter to get around the house. Complainant testified that Respondent admitted to her that it was “his fault” and that they would “fix it.” Complainant had not heard back from Respondent which led her to file the complaint.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 4, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 346014 was Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent was deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

In this case, the evidence clearly established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

In addition, the record clearly established that there was no written contract for this project and that the amount of the project totaled over $1,000.00. Investigator Fagerburg warned Respondent to provide a proper contract to the Registrar, however, Respondent failed to do so. As such, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Respondent’s License No. ROC 346014 for a period of eight days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, December 15, 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]

DNAW LLC

DBA: AZ Flooring by Daniel

5928 W State Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

[email redacted]

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Lana Ward

4431 W. Magellan Dr.

Phoenix, AZ 85087

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff