ALJDEC

02F-G0277-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-02-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 11, 2002. APPEARANCES: No one appeared. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang. _____________________________________________________________________ The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on February 11, 2002 pursuant to advance notice duly sent to both parties. At the scheduled time of hearing, neither party appeared either in person or through a properly authorized representative. Based upon the entire record, it is recommended that the complaint in this matter be dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors against the Respondent, a licensed contractor. In consideration of that complaint, the Office of Administrative Hearings set a hearing to afford Complainant an opportunity to substantiate the claims in the complaint. Although the beginning of the hearing was delayed by approximately 20 minutes to give all parties the opportunity to appear, neither party appeared either in person or by any proper legal representative. 2. Since neither party appeared, no evidence was taken in the matter and the record was considered to be closed. After the time for hearing had passed and the record was closed, the parties submitted a Stipulation to Cancel Hearing, signed by the attorneys for both parties, stating that they had settled the matter. The Stipulation, however, was not considered to be timely. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1104(A)(4), 32-1154(B) and 32-1156. 2. Upon the failure of a party to appear for hearing, the Administrative Law Judge may “vacate the hearing and return the matter to the agency for any further action” pursuant to A.A.C. R2-9-117. 3. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing is generally upon the Complainant. Utah Construction Company v. Berg et al, 68 Ariz. 285, 205 P.2d 367 (1949). Further, the standard of proof at hearing is a “preponderance of the evidence”. Smith v. Arizona Dept. of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985). 4. Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing, failed to sustain the requisite burden of proving by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence that the complaint should be sustained. Further, the parties appear to have settled the matter. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge that the Registrar of Contractors dismiss the complaint in this matter. Done this day, February 20, 2002. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

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