ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-F0127-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-10-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|James Howard Perdue dba | | No. 07F-F0127-ROC | |COCONINO ROOFING COMPANY | | | | | |ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE | | | |DECISION | |COMPLAINANT, | | | | | | | |-v- | | | | | | | | | | | |License No. 226929, Class B- | | | |B C S CONTRACTING (LLC) | | | | | | | |RESPONDENT. | | | | | | |

HEARING: 30 October 2007 APPEARANCES: Complainant: None. Respondent: Bill Eichinger, owner and qualifying party, BCS Contracting (videoteleconference from Flagstaff, Arizona). Others: None. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Maurice McWhirter _____________________________________________________________________ Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) alleging Respondent committed violations of certain provisions of ARS §32-1154(A).

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The above-entitled case was called to hearing on 30 October 2007 at 1330 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, pursuant to a duly promulgated Notice Of Hearing issued to the parties on September 2007, for the purpose of hearing Complainant’s allegations regarding Respondent. Complainant failed to appear and, consequently, no evidence was presented in support of Complainant’s case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the ROC pursuant to ARS §32-1104 and Title 4, Chapter 9, Article 1 of the Arizona Administrative Code. 2. The burden of proof generally at an administrative hearing falls to the Complainant. Culpepper v. Arizona Board of Nursing, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1997); A.A.C. R9-2-119(B). Further, the standard of proof at hearing is by a “preponderance of the evidence”. Smith v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985); A.A.C. R9-2-119(A). Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing, failed to sustain the burden of proving, by a preponderance of reliable, substantial and probative evidence, that Respondent violated any provision of ARS §32-1154(A).

RECOMMENDED DECISION It is recommended that the ROC dismiss this case due to Complainant’s default. Done this day, October 30, 2007

______________________________________ Maurice McWhirter Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2007, to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, 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