ALJDEC - Licensing

2026A-00031-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Shannon Dalley,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Dialed in Epoxy Systems LLC

DBA: Dialed In Epoxy Systems,

License No. ROC 358358,

RESPONDENT

No. 2026A-00031-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 10, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator John Peru on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Shannon Dalley on behalf of herself. Kevin Coleman, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent Dialed in Epoxy Systems LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet (Packet) submitted by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibit 23 admitted. _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Dialed in Epoxy Systems LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 358358 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 3, 2025, Shannon Dalley (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a residential remodel.

On or about January 1, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru. After a jobsite inspection on February 2, 2026, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive (Directive) dated February 17, 2026, 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, March 6, 2026. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 4 - Residue left on counters, walls, door jambs/casings, thresholds, and door handles

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed residue on the Kitchen cabinet toe kicks, tub wall in both bathrooms, entry door threshold. The respondent will conduct an inspection to address any residue / and or contaminants throughout the project scope. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 - Residue left on patio areas and trash cans Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed residue on the trash cans and patio area. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. . . .

Complaint Item: 6 - Used our interior trash cans - left outside and damaged and/or dirty

Investigator’s Observation: See Complaint Item # 5 . . . .

Complaint Item: 9 - Did not remove door or residual baseboard/shoeing unable to be removed by owners

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The respondent shall correct by all residue by appropriate means. . . .

Complaint Item: 16 - Areas lacking clear coat

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, both parties noted areas throughout the floor that were not uniform/consistent with a proper clear coat. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. . . .

Complaint Item: 17 - Dimples, nibs, hair, rocks, or other debris embedded in the coating

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, both parties noted areas throughout the floor that exhibited dimples, debris, and other contaminants. Additionally, there were areas that exhibited unknown shading/streaking/spotting. The respondent shall inspect, determine the cause, and correct by appropriate means. . . .

Complaint Item: 18 - Bubbling observed in one or more areas Investigator’s Observation: SEE Complaint Item # 17. Additionally, both parties acknowledged multiple areas throughout the perimeter (wall/floor) that were uniform/poorly finished, or lacking material leaving gaps/voids. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent attempted to correct the workmanship issues.

On March 4, 2026, Investigator Peru extended the Directive deadline to March 20, 2026, to allow Respondent additional time to complete the Complaint Items.

On March 24, 2026, a Compliance Jobsite Inspection (Compliance Inspection) was scheduled for April 2, 2026. After conducting a Compliance Inspection, Investigator Peru documented his observations in the Compliance Notes, which specified that Complaint Items 16, 17, and 18 were not corrected, whereas the four other Complaint Items were corrected. Thereafter, Investigator Peru forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On April 6, 2026, 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); 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. A hearing was held via Google Meet on June 10, 2026.

Investigator Peru testified consistently with the findings contained in the Directive and Compliance Notes. He testified that Respondent attempted to repair several of the items identified in the Directive and communicated with Investigator Peru frequently; he characterized Respondent’s conduct as engaged in “good faith”. Investigator Peru added that Respondent made “substantial progress” but came short in some areas of concern. Namely, he testified that Complaint items 16, 17, and 18 failed to meet the Registrar’s workmanship standards and clear coat issues, dimples/indentations, and/or bubbling remained in one or more areas.

Investigator Peru also testified that additional time is not allowed for further repairs after Compliance Inspection is completed unless the complainant allows for such additional time. In this case, however, no additional time was granted to Respondent to complete the repairs.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Peru’s testimony. She confirmed that although Respondent “worked hard” and addressed a couple of areas of concerns, some defects remained. In addition, she testified that new defects were identified in Respondent’s repair work. Complainant also submitted as an exhibit a copy of an email from the manufacturer that stated as follows:

We do not recommend or warrant the use of our top coat over another manufacturer’s metallic system. Our products are designed, tested, and intended to be used as part of a complete system, and the combination of materials from different manufacturers can result in compatibility and performance issues beyond our control. Upon review ON 2/17/26, the floor exhibits clear workmanship deficiencies, including debris encapsulated within the surface (dust, rocks, hair, and other contaminants), shadowing of concrete along the perimeter, and visible areas of delamination and blistering. Based on this, the issues present are not indicative of a defect in our top coat material, and responsibility for the current floor condition cannot be attributed to our products.

Mr. Coleman testified that he performed the work to the best of his ability and that he even had his mentor inspect Respondent’s work. He contended that there were pre-existing issues with the clear coat and other surfaces, which required extra primer for preparation. As for the dimples/indentations, Mr. Coleman testified that temperature changes and other factors tend to make such concerns rather “subjective”.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 10, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 358358 was first issued on April 18, 2025, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint and no prior complaints 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

In this case, although Respondent attempted repairs to the best of its ability and engaged in good faith, new issues came up and/or some old issues remained unresolved at the Compliance Inspection. Furthermore, at the hearing, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for failure to perform repair work up to the Registrar’s workmanship standards/inability to complete the corrective work to the Registrar’s satisfaction.

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).

The evidence established that Respondent was unable to complete the corrective work to the Registrar’s satisfaction 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. 358358 for one day.

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 30, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Peru

[email redacted]

Dialed in Epoxy Systems LLC

DBA: Dialed In Epoxy Systems

[email redacted]

Shannon Dalley

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff