ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-4721-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-06-18

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 18, 2009 APPEARANCES: Complainant: Complainant failed to appear either personally or through an authorized representative or counsel. Respondent: Danielle Forchione appeared and was represented by counsel, Dan Fredenberg and Daniel Zebelman. Registrar of Contractors: Inspector Phil Coscia was present on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian E. Smith _____________________________________________________________________ A hearing was convened to determine whether disciplinary sanctions should be imposed against Respondent’s Class B License No. 205564 as alleged by Complainant in his June 9, 2008 Complaint or the Registrar of Contractors’ January 30, 2009 Citation and Complaint. Based on the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This matter convened for hearing at the time, date and place set forth in the Registrar of Contractors’ Notice of Hearing dated April 2, 2009. 2. A Michelle Tremblay appeared at the hearing and related that she was there on behalf of Complainant acting under the authority of a power-of- attorney. Upon inquiry by the Administrative Law Judge, it was learned that Ms. Tremblay is not a licensed attorney. As a result, the undersigned advised that she was unable to represent Complainant due to the prohibitions of Rule 31. 17A A.R.S. Sup. Ct. Rules, Rule 31. Therefore, Complainant did not make an appearance at the hearing. 3. As is evident by his non-appearance, Complainant presented no evidence at the hearing in support of the allegations set forth in his Complaint. 4. Given Complainant’s non-appearance, Respondent counsel moved for the admission of Exhibit R-22 and to dismiss the Complaint.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Upon the failure of a party to appear at a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge may issue a default decision. A.A.C. Rule 2-19- 117 2. Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing, failed to sustain the required burden of proving the charges set forth in the Complaint by a preponderance of reliable, substantial and probative evidence. Consequently, the record does not support any finding that Respondent has violated any provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154A as charged in the instant Citation.

RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, and in light of the lack of prosecution by Complainant, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the entire Citation and Complaint in Case No. 08-4721 be dismissed.[1] Done this day, June 18, 2009.

______________________ Brian E. Smith Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2009, to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors c/o Legal Department 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

By ___________________________ ----------------------- [1] In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order in this matter will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

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

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