ALJDEC

01F-T1203-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-01-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|Henry F. Dickinson, | | Case No.: T01-1203 | | | |Docket No.: 01F-T1203-ROC | |Complainant, | | | | | | | |-v- | | | | | |RECOMMENDED DECISION OF | |License No. 114891, Class C-06 of | |ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE | |Triune, Inc., dba | | | |Whitaker Aquatech Pool Supplies | | | |(Corp), | | | | | | | |Respondent. | | | | | | |

HEARING: Tuesday, January 8th, 2002; 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The complainant, Mr. Henry Dickenson, failed to appear. The respondent, Triune, Inc., doing business as Whitaker Aquatech Pool Supplies, was represented by Mr. Ned L. Thomas, President and owner. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston. _____________________________________________________________________

The administrative hearing of this matter was convened in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson, Arizona on January 8th, 2002. No evidence was heard due to the failure of the complainant to appear for the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This matter was duly scheduled for administrative hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson, on January 8th, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. 2. The complainant had filed a letter in the OAH the day prior to the hearing, January 7th, 2002. In that letter the complainant stated only that he would be unable to attend the hearing “due to a family illness.”

3. Notice of the hearing was duly given to both parties. 4. Complainant, in failing to appear, failed to present any evidence in support of his claim against the respondent. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32- 1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. The complainant has brought this complaint and accordingly must bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the 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 conclusions that the respondent has violated any provision of A.R.S. §2132-1154.A. as set forth in the instant citation and complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that Citation and Complaint No. T01-1203, together with the complaint on which it is based, be dismissed. Done this day, January 25th, 2002.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of January, 2002, 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