ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

06F-2283-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2006-12-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 13, 2006 APPEARANCES: Complainant Stephen Martin failed to appear; Erik Bryan, Respondent’s co-owner, vice president, and authorized representative, appeared on behalf of Respondent Precision Air and Heating, Inc. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Marianne T. Bayardi _____________________________________________________________________

This matter was set for a regularly scheduled hearing on December 13, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. Based upon the entire record in the matter, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On May 5, 2006, Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”). On august 9, 2006, the ROC issued Citation and Complaint number 06-2283. The Complaint alleged violations of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(7). 2. On November 3, 2006, the ROC issued a Notice setting this matter for hearing on December 13, 2006, at 1:30 a.m. at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona. The notice was sent to both parties by certified mail and to Complainant at the address listed for Complainant on its Complaint. Complainant called the Office of Administrative Hearings for clarification of the hearing time. Consequently, on November 16, 2006, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Minute Entry correcting the obvious scrivener’s error and confirming the hearing was set for December 13, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona. 3. On December 12, 2006, Complainant filed a document electronically with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The text of the document stated, in its entirety, as follows: “I don’t have time to come to Phoenix to pursue this.” 4. Complainant failed to appear for the hearing on December 13, 2006. Prior to the start of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge waited more than 15 minutes in order to give Complainant the opportunity to appear. Complainant failed to appear, and further failed to inform the Office of Administrative Hearings of any reason that would establish good cause for failing to appear. After the allotted time to appear had passed, the hearing proceeded in Complainant’s absence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1554(A)(7). 2. Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing, did not present any evidence at the hearing in support of the allegation set forth hereinabove. Therefore, Complainant failed to sustain the required burden of proof. Consequently, the record does not support any finding that Respondent has violated the provision of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A), as charged in the instant Citation. RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No. 06- 2283, together with the Complaint upon which it is based, shall be dismissed. Done this day, December 13, 2006

______________________________________ Marianne T. Bayardi Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2006, to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, Acting Director Registrar of Contractors Legal Department 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

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

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