ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

05F-1930-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2005-11-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 8, 2005 APPEARANCES: Brian Skinner and Kristin Skinner (“Complainants”) failed to appear. Ken Hranek, Customer Service Representative for Woodside Homes of Arizona, Inc. (“Respondent”), appeared on behalf of Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Michael L. Barth _____________________________________________________________________ Findings of Fact 1. On the basis of allegations made in Complainant’s Complaint of numerous deficiencies from drainage to painting, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) cited Respondent for violating the following contracting laws: a. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3)(Violation of any rule adopted by the ROC specifically, A.A.C. R4-9-108 (failure to perform work in a workmanlike manner)). b. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7)(Commission of a wrongful act causing substantial injury). c. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23)(Failure to comply with a Corrective Work Order). 2. Although having been given notice as required by applicable law, Complainants failed to appear for the hearing. Respondent appeared and was ready to defend the foregoing charges. 3. As Complainants failed to appear and prosecute their claim, the record is devoid of evidence supporting the Citation and 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. A.A.C. 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 A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). This standard is not met unless 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 Bankr. 648, 654 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1994). The evidence taken as a whole must convince the decision maker that the party who bears the burden, in this case Complainants, is more probably correct on the issues in dispute. 2. Observing the aforementioned standard, Complainants failed to meet their burden of proof as the record is devoid of evidence demonstrating that Respondent has committed violations of the contracting laws charged by the ROC. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Case No. 05-1930 be dismissed.

Done this day, November 17, 2005.

______________________________________ Michael L. Barth Administrative Law Judge Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2005, to:

Israel G. Torres, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Alicia Guerra 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

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

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