ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08342-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Chelsea Bruce,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Navlin Inc.,

License No. ROC 169908,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-08342-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 21, 2026 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Chelsea Bruce appeared on her own behalf. Navid Abedian appeared on behalf of Respondent Navlin, Incorporated dba: Abbey Flooring Center. Investigator David Cooke appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 1 through 15. Respondent Exhibit A.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Navlin, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 169908 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). This license has a doing business as, Abbey Flooring Center, which was first issued on February 12, 2002.

On or about June 25, 2025, Chelsea Bruce (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, laminate and tile flooring installation, at her residence located in Tucson, Arizona. The contract/invoice listed the company as “Flooring Direct,” in the total amount of $15,992.00 which Complainant paid in full. Respondent contract/invoice did not include the estimated time of completion nor any information regarding the Registrar.

On or about August 20, 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 Cooke. On September 16, 2025, Investigator Cooke conducted a jobsite inspection with both parties present.

Investigator Cooke 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, October 6, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Not proper spacing between areas of the wall and LVP flooring.

Investigator’s Observation: The complainants showed a hallway closet that had in adequate spacing when butting up to the closet shelving. The provided manufacturer’s recommendation suggests a 3/8" space between the floorings end and the perimeters beginning. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 - Spacing for floor and t-molding differs throughout space between LVP and tile.

Investigator’s Observation: The dining room transitions from laminate flooring to tile when entering the kitchen. From north to south, the flooring rises approximately 1/2" on the laminate side. This variance causes the transition strip to begin to angle as it continues south. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means to achieve a consistent install of the transition strip.

The spacing between the laminate and tile meets or exceeds the suggested spacing provided by the manufacturer. All parties agreed that, when installed, the transition strip covers the spacing. No correction required for the transition spacing in the dining and kitchen.

Complaint Item: 4 - Dips and humps throughout areas where LVP was installed

Investigator’s Observation: Multiple areas of concern where shown at the jobsite inspection. Humps and dips shown throughout the house. The manufacturer’s recommendations suggest that any area(s) exceeding 3/16" over a ten foot span, should be either ground down or filled to achieve the required flatness.

Multiple areas exceeding this allowance were shown throughout the house using a 4' level. In some areas the flooring has begun to separate at the interlocking seams. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means and identify any area(s) that exhibit similarities.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent performed some corrective work. As such, a Compliance Inspection was performed on November 4, 2025, with both parties present. The relevant Compliance Findings were as follows:

Complaint Item: 2 - Not proper spacing between areas of the wall and LVP flooring.

Compliance Observation: Both parties agreed that this item was corrected. However, after resolving the spacing concern in the hall closet, the complainant showed a soft area inside the hall closet where the planks met the shelves. This soft spot was considered egregious and exceeded the allowance of industry standards.

NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 3 - Spacing for floor and t-molding differs throughout space between LVP and tile.

Compliance Observation: The complainant did not show any evidence that indicated this item was still of concern. The spacing between the laminate and tile meets or exceeds the suggested spacing provided by the manufacturer. All parties agreed that, when installed, the transition strip covers the spacing. No correction required for the transition spacing in the dining and kitchen. Verified.

CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 4 - Dips and humps throughout areas where LVP was installed

Compliance Observation: Areas of concern were shown at the compliance inspection regarding the spacing at the interlocking seams. No evidence was shown to prove that the plank gap exceeded 0.5 mm which is the industry tolerance for factory beveled edge vinyl planking. It is likely that these gaps could be a result of micro tolerance that is applied during the making of the product.

CORRECTED

On November 6, 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) - §32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Cooke testified that Complaint Item 4 during the compliance inspection had two parts with one part corrected, however, the dips and humps throughout the flooring installation were not corrected per the manufacturer’s recommendation. Investigator Cooke explained that he informed Navid Abedian, Respondent’s part owner and general manager, that the foundational substrate should have been prepped prior to installation.

Complainant testified that Respondent completed subflooring prep work for the tile and there were no issues with that installation, however, there was no prep work completed for the laminate installation which led to a multitude of issues.

Mr. Abedian testified on behalf of Respondent and stated that leveling and grinding was executed on the laminate subfloor, after the issuance of the Written Directive, to try and meet the manufacturer’s recommendation and the Investigator’s complaint. Also, Mr. Abedian admitted that Respondent uses the name ‘Flooring Direct’ and does not use the current dba: Abbey Flooring Center on Respondent correspondence. Mr. Abedian stated that he would look into this matter. Mr. Abedian admitted that he understood that Complainant no longer wanted Respondent at her property trying to fix the flooring. However, Mr. Abedian further testified that he offered Complainant the flooring product at no cost to her and to pay her $3,240.00 which was an estimate that Complainant received to repair the floor. Complainant did not accept that offer.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 21, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 169908 was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there was one open complaint and one complaint resulting in discipline 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. 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, although Respondent made attempts to correct the flooring, 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).

Secondly, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract/invoice 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 attempted to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued, however, there were still outstanding complaint items. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to fix all compliance items which led to a 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 169908 for a period of one day.

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.

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, January 27, 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]

Chelsea Bruce

9611 E Deer Trail

Tucson, AZ 85748

[email redacted]

Navlin, Inc. David Cooke

DBA: Abbey Flooring Center [email redacted]

4844 E Speedway Blvd

Tucson, AZ 85712

[email redacted] By: OAH Staff