Enforcement Actions - D

Using the first letter of the individual’s last name, select the letter group below that corresponds. This will display enforcement actions for the corresponding letter group.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Each page of the Enforcement Actions section is divided into subsections for citations, administrative actions, and convictions. You should check each subsection to see if an enforcement action has been taken against the individual you are seeking.

Citations
Disciplinary Actions
Convictions

Citations

Glush Dada

Cupertino—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,000 administrative fine to Glush Dada, an unlicensed individual, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that while Dada was unlicensed, she maintained Houzz, Facebook, Pinterest, BuildZoom, and Yelp profiles, wherein she used the business name "Glush Design Architects," described herself as providing "Architectural Design," "Architectural Drawings," and "Architectural Services," and categorized herself under "Architects" and "Architects and Building Designers." Dada’s business website contained testimonials referring to her as an "architect" and mentioned her "architectural skills." The citation became final on November 25, 2019.

Christina R. Daniels

Napa—The Board issued a two-count citation with a $4,000 administrative fine to Christina R. Daniels, an unlicensed person, dba Lone Wolf Designs LLC, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and 5536.1(c).

On or about May 23, 2022, Daniels was hired to prepare plans for D.C. (client) and to submit them to the Napa County Building Department for approval. Daniels informed her client that she was an architect and offered to perform design services for a concrete home. Because it involved concrete forms, the project was not exempt from licensing requirements pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 5537. Daniels was paid $18,000 for her design services and stated that the plans would have her “stamp” on them.

On her company website describes her business as a “full service architectural design” firm and in several online profiles, Daniels called herself an architect and architectural designer, advertised as an architect using false license numbers, and advertised the design of non-exempt homes.

Mike De Alba, Jr.

Sanger—The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $2,000 administrative fine to Mike De Alba, Jr., architect license number C-33144, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 5584 (Willful Misconduct), as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, sections 150 (Willful Misconduct) and 160(b)(2) (Willful Misconduct; Failure to Respond to Board Investigation). The action alleged that on or about September 16, 2014, De Alba, Jr. agreed to prepare drawings and/or calculations for a project located in Turlock, California. The contract provided that Construction Documents will be completed in 60 days of Owner signing contract and initial payment. The contract also stated, Owner will sign and date of approval of schematic design and design development drawings prior to commencement of construction documents. The initial payment for the contract was sent to De Alba, Jr. the day after the execution of the contract, September 17, 2014, so the plans should have been completed by November 17, 2014. De Alba, Jr. did not submit the plans to the city of Turlock until in or around April 2015, nor did he provide any designs to the client for approval prior to proceeding to the construction documents stage. The client was not made aware of any delays until he received a copy of an email the city of Turlock sent in their response to De Alba, Jr.’s fifth attempt at submitting the plans, in or around February 2016. De Alba, Jr. thus violated a provision of the agreement with the client and made no reasonable effort to inform the client of the conduct or omission. De Alba, Jr. also failed to respond to the Board’s requests for information regarding an investigation within 30 days. De Alba, Jr. paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on August 6, 2019.

Jerry Deal

Burlingame—The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $2,000 administrative fine to Jerry Deal, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of BPC 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect) and 5536.1(c) (Unauthorized Practice). The action alleged that Deal contracted to provide design services for a second story addition to an existing commercial building project located in Burlingame, California. Deal subsequently prepared plans for the project. The project does not satisfy the criteria for an exempt project type as defined in BPC 5537(a) or 5538 and required a licensed design professional for preparation of plans, drawings, or specifications. Deal paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on April 22, 2015.

Spencer C. Decker

San Francisco—The Board issued a one-count modified citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Spencer C. Decker, architect license number C-25211, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(b) (License Renewal Process; Failure to Maintain Records of Completion of Required Coursework). The action alleged that Decker failed to maintain records of his continuing education coursework for two years from the date of license renewal and failed to make those records available to the Board for auditing upon request. Decker paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on July 20, 2020.

Brent Deming

Orangevale—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Brent Deming, dba T.L. Deming Design, an unlicensed individual, for violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect) and California Code of Regulations section 134(a) (Use of the Term Architect; Responsible Control within Business Entity). The action alleged that Deming prepared a written contract to provide Mr. Y. H. (client) architectural drawings for a restaurant tenant improvement project located on Zinfandel Drive in Rancho Cordova, California. The contract included “Section 5536.22 of the California Business and Professions Code Require written Contract for the Provision of Architectural Services” and “Timothy Deming-Architect – C17784 Civil Engineer – C31608.”

Deming’s company LinkedIn profile under the business name “Brent Tldemingdesign” stated, “We are speacializing [sic] in 3d Arcitectural [sic] design for residential and commercial from start to finish of the prodject [sic].” Deming’s company’s Alignable profile under the business name “Deming Design Inc” states, “T. L. Deming Design, Inc., a multi-purpose home design company with in-house engineering, provides "traditional" architectural and interior design services for both residential and commercial clientele.” Deming’s Manta profile under the business name “T L Deming Architectural Design”, includes “Architectural” in the company name. There was no licensed architect who was in management control of the professional services that were offered and provided by the business entity. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 134(a). The citation became final on January 7, 2021.

Lloyd L. Desbrisay

Cold Spring, NY—The Board issued a one-count modified citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Lloyd L. Desbrisay, architect license number C-26487 for an alleged violation of BPC section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Desbrisay certified false or misleading information on his 2019 License Renewal Application. Desbrisay paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on December 31, 2020.

Brett L.R. Detmers

Costa Mesa—The Board issued a three-count citation, including an administrative fine in the amount of $2,250 to Brett L.R. Detmers, an unlicensed person, dba Studio M of A Inc., for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect) and 5536.1(c) (Unauthorized Practice).

On or about July 7, 2023, Detmers' company website stated, “Just Great Architecture” and “Studio M of A Inc. delivers architecture,” and “The creative brains of Studio M of A Inc. is a seasoned project manager, formable designer, and knowledgeable A/E, construction administrator with diverse experience on a range of projects.” Detmers' company Instagram profile offered “Architectural Designer” and “Architecture.” His personal LinkedIn profile offered “Architectural Design” and “Architecture” skills. The Respondent's company Picuki profile offered “Architecture” and stated, “SMofAinc completed architectural design/engineerin renovation of a SFR..showing partial view of the kitchen/living room area.” His Twitter profile used the title of “Project Architect.”

Board records reveal that the Detmers is not a California licensed architect and there is no licensed architect associated with Studio M of A Inc.

Detmers' company website and online profiles, wherein he used the titles of “Project Architect” and “Architectural Designer” and described his services as “Architecture” and “Architectural,” are devices that might indicate to the public that he is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a).

Detmers' company website includes Warren High School, Polaris Middle School/ Multipurpose Building, and the Metro Center, projects that are not exempt from licensing requirements, as samples of his work. The website states, “Studio M of A Inc (SMofAinc) combines over 24 years of professional experience on a diverse range of projects including: Kindergarten through College level schools, libraries, mixed-use sites, civic projects, custom residential, senior residences, restaurants, theme parks, tenant improvements and more.”

Detmers' Facebook profile uses photos stating, “This project is in Design Development: 4,900 s.f. three (3) story with a roof deck, sporting a master bedroom, bath, walkin closet. This particular roof deck has two decks north/south with a living wall open California room. There is an elevator connecting all three levels. Smart design. Located in Newport Beach, CA.” His company Instagram profile included photos of a three-story design. His company Picuki profile included a three-story beach house.

Detmers' company website and online profiles, wherein he offered design services that are not exempt from licensing requirements are devices that might indicate to the public that he is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a).

The Board obtained plans and a copy of the contract for the three-story residence in Newport Beach. The plans dated September 10, 2020, describe the addition of a new three-story, two-unit residence duplex with an attached two car garage. Detmers provided design and project coordination for this project. The title block included Detmers' name and company name, and refers to them as “Masters in Architecture.”

The Newport Beach Project does not meet the exemption requirements of the Architects Practice Act pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 5537(a)(1); it exceeds the allowable height of two stories and a basement. Such conduct constitutes the practice of architecture as defined in Business and Professions Code section 5500.1 and a violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and 5536.1(c). Detmers paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on June 11, 2024.

Armen M. Devejian

Lafayette—The Board issued a two-count citation that included a $1,500 administrative fine to Armen M. Devejian, architect license number C-26573, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section (BPC) 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements) and California Code of Regulations section (CCR) 160(b)(2) (Rules of Professional Conduct). The action alleged that Devejian failed to provide documentation to the Board from the course provider upon an audit of his 2016 License Renewal Application and failed to respond to the Board’s requests for information within 30 days in regards to an investigation. Devejian paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on March 10, 2017.

Paul Joseph Dhanens

Bakersfield—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Paul Joseph Dhanens, architect license number C-23843, for an alleged violation of BPC 5536.22(a) (Written Contract). The action alleged that Dhanens failed to execute a written contract prior to commencing professional services for a residential project located in Bakersfield, California. Dhanens paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on March 17, 2017.

Katherine Diamond

Los Angeles— The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $250 administrative fine to Katherine Diamond, architect license number C-13544, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Diamond certified false or misleading information on her 2019 License Renewal Application. Diamond paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on November 2, 2020.

Eliad Dorfman

Los Angeles—The Board issued a three-count citation that included a $4,500 administrative fine to Eliad Dorfman, dba Eliad Dorfman Design, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code (BPC) sections 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect) and 5536.1(c) (Preparation of Plans for Non-Exempt Buildings). Dorfman paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The action alleged that Dorfman offered his design and construction administration services and prepared drawings for a six-unit apartment building, a three-story, eight-unit apartment building, and a four-story residence, which are not buildings exempt from the requirements of the Architects Practice Act pursuant to BPC sections 5537(a) and 5538, constituting the practice of architecture as defined in BPC section 5500.1. The citation became final on January 18, 2020.

Tobin T. Dougherty

Nevada City—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Tobin T. Dougherty, architect license number C-24452, for alleged violations of BPC 5536.22(a)(3), (4) and (5) (Written Contract). The action alleged that Dougherty’s written contract to provide design services for an addition and remodel to an existing residence did not include: the name, address, and license number of the architect; the address of the client; a description of the procedure that the architect and the client will use to accommodate additional services; and a description of the procedure to be used by either party to terminate the contract. The citation became final on October 10, 2016.

David Daniel Drennan

Vernon—The Board issued a two count-citation that included a $2,000 administrative fine to David Daniel Drennan, architect license number C-40236, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections 5536(a), 5536(b), 5536.1(c).

Prior to Drennan becoming licensed in California, he created preliminary plans for a data center project in Vernon, California. The data center project is not a building exempt from licensing requirements under Business and Professions Code sections 5537(a) and 5538, and preliminary plans are included within the practice of architecture as defined in Business and Professions Code section 5500.1. Furthermore, due to the size and nature of the project there was a substantial risk of consumer harm and threat to public safety. Offering and providing such services constituted a violation Business and Professions Code sections 5536(a) and 5536.1(c)

Drennan also represented himself as a licensed architect in California by including the statement on his plans "This Document was produced by or under the authority of Registered Architect: D. Daniel Drennan." This constituted a violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(b). Mr. Drennan paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on February 21, 2023.

Jhun Dulay

Torrance—The Board issued a one-count citation with a $1,500 administrative fine to Jhun Dulay, an unlicensed person, dba JD Designeers, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a).

On or around May 5, 2022, Dulay was hired by K.K. (client) to provide plans and obtain construction permits for a third-floor addition with two bedrooms for a project in Manhattan Beach, California. Dulay was paid $3,000 by the client, but he abandoned the project. The project scope of work specified “proposed new third level addition and remodel existing garage.” Because it involved a residence greater than two stories and a basement in height, the project was not exempt from licensing requirements pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 5537.

Dulay invoiced his client for “Providing an Architectural set of plans.” His personal LinkedIn profile offered “architectural” services.

The Manhattan Beach project constituted the practice of architecture as defined in Business and Professions Code section 5500.1 and a violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). Dulay’s proposal, invoice, and LinkedIn profile, wherein he used the title of “remodeling architect” and described his services as “Architectural” are devices that might indicate to the public that Dulay is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). Dulay paid the fine satisfying the citation. The citation became final on April 15, 2024.

Stephen D. Dunakoskie

Leesburg, Virginia—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Stephen D. Dunakoskie, architect license number C-17783, for an alleged violation of BPC 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Dunakoskie certified false or misleading information on his 2015 License Renewal Application. The citation became final on February 23, 2016.

Vincent Antony Dyer

Ferndale, Washington—The Board issued a one-count citation that included a $750 administrative fine to Vincent Antony Dyer, architect license number C-12762, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Audit; False or Misleading Information on Coursework on Disability Access Requirements). The action alleged that Dyer certified false or misleading information on his 2017 License Renewal Application. The citation became final on March 22, 2018.

Disciplinary Actions

Jerry Hayes Dohn

Indio—Effective July 8, 2024, Jerry H. Dohn’s architect license number C-21996 was revoked. However, the revocation was stayed, his license was suspended for 30 days, and he was placed on probation for five years, with specific terms and conditions. The action was the result of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, which was adopted by the Board.

On February 22, 2024, an Accusation was filed against Dohn for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections 5536.22(a)(1), (4), (6), (7), and (8) (Written Contract Requirements), 5578 (Practicing in Violation of the Act), 5582 (Aiding Unlawful Practice), 5582.1(a) and (b) (Signing Other’s Plans or Instruments; Permitting Misuse of Name), 5584 (Willful Misconduct), and California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 150 (Willful Misconduct), 151 (Aiding and Abetting), and 160 (Rules of Professional Conduct) subsection (g)(1) (Informed Consent).

The Accusation alleged that on or about June 23, 2021, Mr. S.A. (Client) hired South West Concepts, Inc. (SWC, see Nieto citation), and their staff architect Dohn to review and stamp plans created by unlicensed designer Hundred Mile House (HMH). The plans were for the conversion of an existing warehouse building located in Cathedral City, California, into a cannabis cultivation plant. Dohn and SWC entered a contract with the Client, entitled “Proposal for Architectural Services,” in which Dohn agreed to review, stamp, and sign plans for $5,000. The contract was missing required elements, and contained conflicting language that stated both that the Client would be responsible for plan check correction costs as well as stating that “Corrections as requested at plan check shall be completed at no additional costs to the owners.”

Dohn stamped and signed HMH’s plans dated June 1, 2021, which bore the HMH logo on the title block. Dohn had no affiliation with HMH when he stamped and signed the plans, which were not prepared under his responsible control or under his immediate and responsible direction.

On or about October 4, 2021, SWC submitted the plans to Cathedral City, and on October 5, 2021, billed the Client $5,520; $520 more than the contract total. The original $5,000 was for “plan review and professional stamps by staff architect [Dohn]”, and the additional $520 was billed without obtaining the consent of the client in writing, for “plan revisions as needed.” The Client paid $5,520 to SWC on or about October 12, 2021.

On or about October 21, 2021, SWC received a second round of plan check corrections from Cathedral City. On or about November 16, 2021, SWC emailed the Client stating that the remaining corrections were excessive, and the project had turned into “another problem project created by others that I really want no part of.” On or about November 21, 2021, the Client emailed SWC requesting an estimate for corrections and a timeframe. SWC replied that it would take two to three months “if I decide that I want to complete the corrections.” SWC further stated that “We did not design the project, so we need to learn the project thoroughly,” and estimated that plan check corrections would cost an additional $30,000 to $40,000.

The Client disputed this additional cost, stating that SWC and Dohn had never finished the plans, refused to complete the plan check corrections, and had not fulfilled their contractual obligations. SWC responded that the scope of work included in the contract “indicates that the service is for plan review and stamping. It does not indicate that corrections are included.” SWC did not provide a refund to the Client.

Dohn entered into a contract to review, stamp, and sign plans for $5,000. However, when Cathedral City returned the project with plan check corrections that needed addressing, Dohn and SWC claimed that corrections were not in the contract scope. Dohn refused to complete the plan check corrections stating that they were not his responsibility, and SWC charged the Client $520 more than the contract price. Dohn failed to exercise responsible control over or complete the plans he had stamped, did not complete corrections sufficient to assist the Client in obtaining a permit, and failed to provide the contractually required services.

Dohn entered into a stipulated settlement, and the Board adopted the proposed Disciplinary Order, which became effective on July 8, 2024.

Convictions

LeAndre Davis

San José—LeAndre Davis, 37, was sentenced to 87 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.17 million restitution for fraud schemes stemming from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Mr. Davis was president of Shadowbrook Design Group, which was retained by Allstate Insurance Co. to provide engineering services following the quake. The case was the result of an investigation by the Board, Department of Consumer Affairs, and the FBI and resulted in the September 2000 conviction by a Los Angeles federal jury on 26 criminal counts related to three fraud schemes. The first scheme involved preparing false and misleading engineering reports that Allstate used to settle claims for policyholders whose property was damaged in the quake. Mr. Davis falsely represented that he was an architect in the reports. In addition, reports were prepared with inadequate inspection and in some cases were prepared and used to settle claims when no architect or engineer had inspected the policyholder’s property.