ALJDEC
01F-A012018(2)-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2002-02-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|VICTORIA WEST, | | No. 01F-A012018(1 &2)-BFS | | | |RECOMMENDED DECISION | |Appellant, | |OF ADMINISTRATIVE | | | |LAW JUDGE | |-v- | | | | | | | |HOMES BY OAKWOOD, INC., | | | |LICENSE NO. 6564 CLASS M-9C (1) | | | | | | | |AND | | | | | | | |OAKWOOD MOBILE HOMES, INC., dba | | | |OAKWOOD HOMES - YUMA, | | | |LICENSE NO. 6574 CLASS D-8, (2) | | | | | | | |Respondents. | | | | | | |
HEARING: February 5, 2002 APPEARANCES: Scott Aubrey appeared on behalf of Respondent Homes by Oakwood. Ricardo Garcia appeared on behalf of Respondent Oakwood Mobile Homes. Complainant failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Constantino Flores _____________________________________________________________________ This matter came on for a regularly scheduled hearing on Tuesday, February 5, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. The Administrative Law Judge notes for the record that the start of the scheduled hearing was delayed for approximately fifteen (15) minutes so as to allow added time for appearance by or on behalf of Complainant Victoria West. Complainant failed to appear, and further failed to inform the Office of Administrative Hearings of any reason which would establish good cause for failing to appear. Based on the entire record, the following Findings o Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:
FINDINGS OF FACT Victoria West appealed the Arizona Department of Building and Fire Safety’s (the “Department”) decision that items 1 and 2 in the Verified Complaint and Sign-Off Form had been confirmed as “CORRECTED BY MANUFACTURER”, after the September 5, 2001 inspection. On December 28, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing, incorrectly stating the issue to be addressed as an appeal from the Department inspector ‘s determination that items 1 and 2 were “NOT VERIFIED”, but setting the hearing in this case for February 5, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Department sent a copy of the notice of hearing to Appellant by certified mail. Complainant did not appear for the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The burden of proof was on Complainant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to confirm items 1 and 2 as “CORRECTED BY MANUFACTURER” was incorrect. By her failure to appear at the hearing, Complainant failed to sustain the required burden of proof. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be dismissed.
Done this day, February 7, 2002
______________________________________ Constantino Flores Administrative Law Judge
Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2002, to:
Department of Building and Fire Safety N. Eric Borg ATTN: Shawna Blank East Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004
By ___________________________
-----------------------
Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826