ALJDEC

01F-P0127-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-07-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|Daniel Begay, | | Case Nos.: P01-0125, P01-0127,| |Complainant, | |and P01-0128 | |-v- | | | |License No. 114996, Class C-42 of | |Docket Nos.: 01F-P0125-ROC, | |Fuller Enterprises, LLC, d.b.a. | |01F-P0127-ROC, and 01F-P0128-ROC | |Quality 1st Roofing (LLC), | | | |Respondent. | | | |and | | | |Freddie Begay, | | | |Complainant, | | | |-v- | | | |License No. 114996, Class C-42 of | |RECOMMENDED DECISION OF | |Fuller Enterprises, LLC, d.b.a. | |ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE | |Quality 1st Roofing (LLC), | | | |Respondent. | | | |and | | | |Eric Begay, | | | |Complainant, | | | |-v- | | | |License No. 114966, Class C-42 of | | | |Fuller Enterprises, LLC, d.b.a. | | | |Quality 1st Roofing (LLC), | | | |Respondent. | | | | | | |

HEARING: July 17th, 2001; 8:45 a.m. APPEARANCES: The complainants, Messrs. Daniel, Freddie and Eric Begay, failed to appear. The respondent, Fuller Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Quality 1st Roofing, was represented by Mr. Timothy B. Shaffery, attorney-at-law. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston. _____________________________________________________________________ These consolidated matters were brought on for administrative hearing in Show Low, Arizona, on July 17th, 2001. The case was noticed to convene at 8:30 a.m. The respondent appeared, but the complainants failed to appear. The case was called at 8:45 a.m. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. These consolidated matters were duly scheduled for administrative hearing in Show Low, Arizona, on July 17th, 2001. The respondent appeared at the appointed time through counsel. The complainants failed to appear. An additional 15 minutes was allowed by the judge before he called the case. 2. Notice of the hearing was duly given to both parties. 3. Complainants, in failing to appear, failed to present any evidence in support of their respective complaints against the respondent. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1156 and §41-1092. 2. The complainants have brought this complaint and accordingly must bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the allegations contained therein are true. A.A.C. R2-19-119. See also: Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (Ct. App. 1996); Smith v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706. P.2d 756 (App. 1985) (the standard of proof is that of the “preponderance of evidence”). 3. Consequently, the record does not support any conclusion that the respondent has violated any provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154.A., as set forth in the instant citations and complaints. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing it is hereby recommended that citations and complaints P01-0125, P01-0127, and P01-0128, together with the complaints on which they are based, be dismissed. Done this day, July 31st, 2001.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By _______________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488