Nevada State Board of Cosmetology accepts allegations and revokes licenses after five respondents fail to appear

Reno and Las Vegas — On Sept. 29, 2025, the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology voted to accept factual allegations and impose recommended discipline, including 10-year license revocations, maximum administrative penalties under state law and recovery of investigative costs, in five disciplinary cases after the respondents failed to appear for their hearings.

The actions were taken following staff testimony that complaint notices and hearing materials had been mailed or personally served. Jamie Huggins, chief compliance officer for the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology, testified that certified mailings were deposited on Sept. 11, 2025, and scanned by the U.S. Postal Service on Sept. 12, 2025. "The certified mail was placed in the mail on 09/11/2025 from the office. It was scanned into the United States Postal Service on 09/12/2025. We have not received a green card, but the tracking, I believe, shows that it was delivered to the address," Huggins said.

Why it matters: The board enforces licensing and consumer-protection standards for cosmetology businesses and practitioners in Nevada. Adopting the recommended discipline in default proceedings removes licenses from the market temporarily or permanently and shifts recovery of investigative costs to the licensees named in the complaints.

What the board did: The board handled five separate disciplinary matters on the agenda. In each case the division moved to admit proof of service and the exhibits, the board found service sufficient, accepted the factual allegations and conclusions of law in the complaints, and then adopted the division's recommended discipline. The board recorded motions, voice votes and the procedural finding of default under applicable statute when respondents did not appear.

Cases decided (summary):

- Luis Alberto Gonzalez (respondent): Complaint EDash2025Dash0141, license numbers referenced in the hearing record as AEDash2016 and ADash106232. The division requested the board accept the allegations as true and adopt the recommended discipline. The board voted to accept the findings and adopted the recommended sanctions, including imposition of maximum administrative penalties under statute, revocation of the license for 10 years, and full recovery of investigative costs and attorney fees, with fines and fees due within 90 days of the board-signed order.

- Best Asian Spa (owner/operator listed in the record as Wen Zhang), business ID NB20232725135, license S708597: The division presented proof of service (certified mail and, in this case, personal service), the board found service sufficient, accepted the allegations and adopted the division's recommended discipline including 10-year revocation, maximum penalties and recovery of costs and fees due within 90 days.

- K Spa (recorded variably in the transcript; license S708755, business NV20232811342, owner referenced in the record as Wen Zheng/Wen Zhang): The board found service sufficient after staff testimony that certified mail and personal service had been completed, accepted the complaint's factual allegations and conclusions of law, and adopted the recommended discipline outlined in the complaint: maximum penalties, 10-year revocation and recovery of investigative costs and attorney fees, due within 90 days.

- Ed and Dave's Spa (recorded in the transcript as respondent with owner/operator Yang Zhu, license S709071, business NB20232936225): The division testified to proof of mailing; the board found service sufficient, accepted allegations and adopted the recommended discipline, including maximum administrative penalties, 10-year revocation and recovery of costs and fees due within 90 days.

- Blue Aroma Spa (business ND20222655655; license S708511; owner/operator recorded as Dong Pan): Division staff testified that proof of mailing (returned green card) supported service. The board accepted the factual allegations and conclusions of law and adopted the recommended discipline, including maximum penalties, 10-year revocation and full recovery of investigative costs and attorney fees, with payment due within 90 days.

What was discussed (procedural points): Board discussion in these agenda items focused on proof of service, admission of exhibits and the procedural default when respondents did not file answers or appear. Staff repeatedly identified dates of mailing and personal service where applicable; the board admitted the certified-mail proofs and moved forward on the record. No respondents appeared to contest any of the matters.

Votes and motions: For each case, the board moved to accept the division's proofs of service and exhibits, then to accept the factual allegations and conclusions of law, and finally to adopt the division's recommended discipline. The transcript records voice votes for each motion ("All in favor? Aye.") and the chair announcing "Motion carries." The minutes in the record show the board adopted the recommended sanctions in each of the five matters.

Context and next steps: The board's orders were to include imposition of maximum administrative penalties under state statute, ten-year license revocations and full recovery of investigative costs and attorney fees. The orders direct that fines and fees be paid within 90 days of the board-signed order; the transcript does not indicate dollar amounts for the penalties. The board adjourned at 9:34 a.m. after hearing these matters and conducting no public comments or additional substantive agenda business.

Quotes: "The certified mail was placed in the mail on 09/11/2025 from the office. It was scanned into the United States Postal Service on 09/12/2025. We have not received a green card, but the tracking, I believe, shows that it was delivered to the address," Jamie Huggins, chief compliance officer, testified on the record about proof of service.

Reporting note: The board repeatedly cited Nevada statutory and administrative authority as the basis for default proceedings and the range of disciplinary sanctions; the record references NRS provisions for cosmetology licensing enforcement and the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) for penalties, but the transcript does not record a specific statute section number beyond the citation style used in the hearing (referenced in the record as NRS 644A and NAC).