ALJDEC

01F-0192-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-01-16

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|PHOENIX WINPUMP COMPANY, | | No. 01F-0192-ROC | | | |RECOMMENDED DECISION | |Complainant, | |OF ADMINISTRATIVE | | | |LAW JUDGE | |-v- | | | | | | | |License No. 120798, Class C-53 of | | | | | | | |WATER WELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., | | | |(CORP), | | | | | | | |Respondent. | | | | | | |

HEARING: January 16, 2001 APPEARANCES: Complainant : No one appeared for Phoenix Winpump Company. Respondent : No representative appeared for Water Well Technologies, Inc. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Gary B. Strickland _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for 9:00 A.M., January 16, 2001 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. Although having been given notice as required by applicable law, Complainant Phoenix Winpump Company failed to appear for the hearing. 2. As Complainant failed to appear and prosecute its claim, the record is devoid of evidence supporting the complaint. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The burden of proof generally at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right or entitlement or seeking to impose a penalty. Culpepper v. Arizona Board of Nursing, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1997); See also Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119 (B). Further, the standard of proof is that of the “preponderance of the evidence”. Smith v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985); See also Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119 (A). Proof by a preponderance means that the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “…more likely true than not.” In re Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648, 654 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). The evidence taken as a whole must convince the decision maker that the party who bears the burden, in this case Phoenix Winpump Company, is more probably correct on the issue(s) in dispute. 2. The record is devoid of evidence indicative that Respondent has violated any of the statutory provisions cited in the Citation and Complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, IT IS RECOMMENDED that complaint No. 01-0192 against Water Well Technologies, Inc. be dismissed.

Set forth this 16th day of January in the year 2001. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Gary B. Strickland Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2001, to:

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater Attn: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826