ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07805-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Karen Leipart,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Lino and Son's Developments LLC,
License No. ROC 340274 & ROC 335955
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-07805-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 12, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Karen Leipart
Respondent: Josh Ortiz
Registrar of Contractors: David Fagerburg, Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Lino and Son’s Developments, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License Nos. 340274 and 335955 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on August 18, 2022, and December 15, 2021, respectively.
On or about May 29, 2023, Karen Leipart (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for construction of a livable ADU/addition, including new vestibule and new main entry addition, 3-car garage addition, build out addition, patios, and an entire remodel of the existing home. The contract did not include Respondent’s business address or license number or an advisement that Complainant had a right to file a complaint with the Registrar.
On or about August 5, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on August 11, 2025, scheduling the inspection for September 23, 2025.
Investigator Fagerburg conducted the jobsite inspection on September 19, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on October 22, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: Failure to properly install and repair/ replace windows. 18 frames installed backwards, 1 broken, 1 slider broken, 1 mi
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a new home build that is incomplete. The complainant acknowledged another contractor removed all the windows and frames that were installed backwards and replaced broken window glass and will be providing the missing window which is considered modification under ARS § 32-1155 (D)(2). See P (3) and P (8) thru P (17). During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me 1 sliding glass door that is difficult to operate. The operational side of the door appears to be off the track. The respondent stated the wheels need to be replaced and adjusted. See P (4) thru P (7). The respondent shall correct the 1 sliding glass door that is difficult to operate, ensure proper operation and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.
Complaint Item 2: Poor workmanship Walls not plumb
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a new home build that is incomplete. The complainant showed me walls that are not straight, square or plumb and interior doors that are not plumb or do not close properly. A majority of the interior doors observed have been installed and have damage to the latch area. I am unable to determine who may have caused the damage or when. Per ROC Workmanship Standards, contractor’s responsibility on all manufactured surfaces is valid only if the damaged surface is indicated to the contractor or contractor’s representative within 10 days after move-in or from when the damage occurred. To date there has been no documentation provided that the damage was reported to the respondent within 10 days of when the damage may have occurred. During this jobsite investigation the majority of the drywall and baseboard installation has been completed. The complainant also showed me where the walls in a water closet are out of square and the space is not equal. See P (18) thru P (52). The respondent shall correct the walls that are not straight, square or plumb and doors that are not plumb and do not operate properly and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.
Complaint Item 4: Poor workmanship damaged and not plumb eaves of exterior crooked, cracked and gapped
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation along the entire exterior perimeter of the home the complainant showed me fascia miter cuts with joints that do not line up with large gaps and eaves that are crooked with excessive gaps along the exterior walls and soffit joints. The soffit material is also wavy from rafter to rafter. See P (54) thru P (82). The respondent shall correct the eaves and fascia that is crooked, cracked and have large gaps as well as the wavy soffit and complete the project in a timely manner 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 by the compliance date listed above.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Fagerburg of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 2025.
Investigator Fagerburg testified that, on November 4, 2025, he issued an Amended Written Directive, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
After further review it has been determined that the respondent removed and re-installed the 2 fixed primary bathroom shower windows that were initially installed backwards and shall correct the 2 windows with damage to the frames by appropriate means. All other items listed on the original Written Directive issued October 22, 2025 remain standing.
The Amended Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Fagerburg of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on November 21, 2025.
On November 24, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Fagerburg that no corrective work had been performed on the project.
On November 26, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on December 11, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted multiple issues contributed to the circumstances including, payment delays which impacted progress, a hostile work environment, Complainant operated against the allowable scope of work, expected Respondent to work for free, and work of trades involved for which Respondent was not responsible. Additionally, after receiving the Written Directive, Respondent advised Complainant’s husband that Respondent could perform repairs on November 5, 2025, and husband approved; however, prior to that date Complainant sent multiple emails requesting information regarding timing, site supervisors to be present, number of hours expected to work each day, and how many days to complete. At this point, Respondent understood that Complainant was simply making it harder for Respondent to complete the work, and it was left with no other choice than to cease responding to Complainant. On November 5, 2025, Respondent dispatched a team to perform the corrective repairs, but received a call from the team stating Complainant would not let them work.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On December 26, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for February 12, 2026.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 12, 2026.
Investigator Fagerburg testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, he never received a copy of the revised contract as required by the Written Directive and Respondent never mentioned denial of access to him. Additionally, Investigator Fagerburg attempted to contact Respondent on multiple occasions via phone, mail and email. However, USPS mail was returned, and Respondent’s voicemail was always full so a message could not be left. The only practical way to communicate was through email. Regarding Respondent’s claim that Complainant would not allow Respondent to perform corrective work on November 5, 2025, it was his understanding that no advanced notice had been provided from Respondent to Complainant to schedule the date and time, which was problematic because there were other subcontractors also scheduled to work to be considered. It was customary to provide 24-48 hours’ notice.
Complainant testified in support of and in agreement with Investigator Fagerburg’s testimony. She clarified that she sent the emails referenced in Respondent’s Answer asking for specific information because, as Investigator Fagerburg pointed out in his testimony, she had other subcontractors in various trades also completing work, and it was important and necessary to coordinate scheduling them around each other.
Josh Ortiz testified for Respondent in support of the Answer and added that he did not reach out to Investigator Fagerburg or Complainant regarding a denial of access because he knew Respondent would not be allowed on Complainant’s property.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 12, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 340274 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and one resolved/settled complaint against Respondent’s license.
/ / / /
/ / / /
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). During the Directive period, homeowners cannot refuse access to a contractor and seek discipline against that contractor. Refusing access impinges on the contractor’s right to defend itself by correcting its work within the Registrar of Contractors process. However, homeowners are not required to give a contractor free reign of the property: they may set reasonable limits on access, while providing the contractor sufficient time and access to correct the issues by appropriate means. Although Mr. Ortiz argued he was denied access because Complainant would not allow Respondent to work on the one day they attempted to perform corrective work, the evidence established that Complainant had asked Respondent to provide specific information pertinent to scheduling and coordinating all the contracted trades that were working on the project. It was reasonable for Complainant to request such information prior to allowing Respondent to perform corrective work. Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge does not find that access was denied.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for five business days Respondent’s License No. 340274.
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 A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
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, March 9, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
David Fagerburg
[email redacted]
Lino and Son's Developments LLC
[email redacted]
Karen Leipart
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff