ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07002-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-26
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Ankit Dave,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
G.O.A.L Landscaping LLC
License No. ROC 357115,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-07002-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 9, 2026 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Ankit Dave appeared on his own behalf with witness Avanti Mistry. 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
G.O.A.L. Landscaping, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 357115 first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on February 12, 2025.
On or about June 7, 2025, Ankit Dave (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, backyard installation which included turf, garden areas, and marble pavers. The total amount of the contract was $31,000.00 and Complainant paid $31,156.00 to Respondent. The project took place at Complainant’s residential home located in Phoenix, Arizona.
On or about July 16, 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 August 12, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg conducted a jobsite inspection, Respondent did not attend.
On August 29, 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 Friday, September 19, 2025.
. . . .
Investigator Notes:
1: Upon reviewing the written contract/invoice submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract. Specifically, #4 and #9. Warning letter issued.
2: During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me CMU block planters with stacked stone being installed in the backyard that is currently ongoing and incomplete. The complainant stated the planters are not being built per the design plan and is concerned that the synthetic turf installed will need to be pulled up to install the irrigation system that has not been started. These allegations are not listed on the complaint form. I am unable to address any addendum complaint items without the respondent being present or made aware of prior to this jobsite investigation.
3: It is noted that during this jobsite investigation there were 2 workers onsite.
Complaint Narrative: The crew's inconsistent presence and lack of materials have caused significant delays, exceeding the July 8th deadline. Despite paying 70% ($21,000), the contractor, Lideo, hasn't secured the necessary materials and is demanding additional funds. To add to the concerns, the installed marble exhibits widespread lippage and shoddy workmanship.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: Marble installation botched; paid 70%, but contractor demands more violating payment on completion contract. Work halted.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a large patio with marble pavers installed in the backyard of the home. The complainant showed me marble pavers with lippage that exceeds 1/8” at numerous locations, marble pavers with chips or damage surfaces, pavers with gaps that are not uniform in the field, pavers with gaps that exceed 3/8” at the columns and stem walls and border pavers that are not adequately mortared in place. See P (3) thru P (14) and P (18) thru P (29). I also observed the marble paver pattern with a wedge shape row of pavers along the north border edge of the patio near the south stem wall of the home that is not uniform or consistent with the remaining paver pattern. The complainant explained that the respondent started the paver installation square with the backyard CMU block wall which is not square with the stem wall of the home. See P (15) thru P (17). It is noted that the respondent has been paid $21,000.00 of the total contract price of $31,000.00. The respondent shall correct the marble paver layout with a wedge shape row of pavers at the south side stem wall of the home, pavers installed with lippage that exceeds 1/8” in the field, pavers with gaps at the perimeter that exceed 3/8”, pavers with gaps that are not uniform in the field and pavers with chips or other damage throughout by appropriate means.
Additional Requirements:
The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised 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.
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, on September 17, 2025, Respondent provided Investigator Fagerburg with a revised contract, and he determined that the dollar amount of any advance deposit paid was still a missing element.
On September 18, 2025, Respondent came out and corrective work was performed prior to the deadline date. As such, a Compliance Inspection was performed on October 3, 2025, with both parties present. The relevant Compliance Findings were as follows:
Complaint Item 1: Marble installation botched; paid 70%, but contractor demands more violating payment on completion contract. Work halted. Compliance Observation: The respondent did not correct the marble paver layout with a wedge shape row of pavers at the south side stem wall of the home. During this compliance jobsite inspection the complainant stated the layout is acceptable as is and prefers the layout to be square with the backyard CMU block wall. See P (3) thru P (6). There are some marble pavers remaining with lippage that exceeds 1/8” in the field with broken corners and chips along the edges. See P (13) thru P (23). The respondent made no attempt to correct the pavers with gaps at the perimeter and around the columns that exceed 3/8” and pavers with gaps that are not uniform in the field. See P (4) thru P (12). During this compliance jobsite inspection the complainant showed me where the perimeter pavers are not adequately mortared in place. See P (24).
NOT CORRECTED
Additional Requirements: The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised 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.
Compliance Observation: The respondent provided a revised copy of a contract that is in compliance with ARS §32-1158 (A) with the exception of the dollar amount of any advanced deposit or progress payments.
NOT CORRECTED
On October 15, 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, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00pm on December 22, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
Complainant requested a continuance due to the holidays which was granted. On December 18, 2025, an Order Granting Continuance and Google Meet Link for Virtual Appearance was emailed to both parties. The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 9, 2026 at 9:00am.
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 he conducted a prehearing inspection on February 3, 2025 at 4:00pm and the project was still “not completely corrected.” Investigator Fagerburg believed that Respondent had an issue with his supplier regarding receiving additional material to properly correct the work. Investigator Fagerburg argued that typically a contractor should have at least 20% additional paver materials to filter out damaged product.
Avanti Mistry, Complainant’s spouse, testified that there were approximately thirty cracked tiles and remaining lippage issues. Mrs. Mistry further testified that when Respondent made repairs, more tiles broke and cracked. Complainant and Mrs. Mistry testified that Respondent’s main point of contact “Lideo” was “short-tempered” and disruptive throughout the project.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 9, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 357115 was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there was one open complaint and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
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 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).
Respondent attempted to correct all errors deficient in its contract, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include one of the required elements as set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Due to the attempted correction and only one element needing to be brought into compliance, this Tribunal finds that Respondent is not in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
However, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to properly correct Complaint Item One (1) 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 357115 for a period of two days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 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.
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, February 26, 2026.
/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]
David Fagerburg
[email redacted]
G.O.A.L Landscaping LLC
8844 W CINNABAR AVE
PEORIA, AZ 85345
[email redacted]
Ankit Dave
2319 W Hide Trl
Phoenix, AZ 85085
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff