ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-M1830-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-01-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 17, 2008 APPEARANCES: Ernest Shaver, Respondent’s Attorney; Albert DeAnda, Respondent’s representative ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on January 17, 2008 pursuant to advance notice duly sent to both parties. The Respondent appeared with an attorney. Complainant did not appear. Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. 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 15 minutes to give all parties the opportunity to appear, Complainant did not appear either in person or by any proper legal representative.

2. As a result of his non-appearance, Complainant offered no evidence in support of his Complaint. The Administrative Law Judge noted Complainant’s failure to appear and dismissed the party who appeared. No evidence was taken in the matter. 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. 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). 3. 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. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, and in light of the lack of prosecution of the Complaint by Complainant, it is recommended that the Registrar of Contractors dismiss the Complaint in this matter. If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be forty days from the date of certification. Done this day, January 28, 2008 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2008, to:

Registrar of Contractors Fidelis V. Garcia 3838 N. Central Ave., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1906

By ___________________________ -----------------------

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