ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-M0246-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-06-04

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|ROBERT J. KERRIGAN JR | | | | | | | | | | | |COMPLAINANT, | |No. 08F-M0246-ROC | | | | | |-v- | |ADMINISTRATIVE | | | |LAW JUDGE DECISION | | | | | |License No. 136088, Class B- | | | |SUNTEK CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC | | | |(CORP) | | | | | | | | | | | |RESPONDENT. | | | | | | |

HEARING: June 4, 2008 APPEARANCES: Complainant: Complainant failed to appear either personally or through any authorized representative or counsel. Respondent: Respondent failed to appear either through any authorized representative or counsel. 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. 136088 as alleged by Complainant in his August 16, 2007 complaint or the Registrar of Contractors’ January 15, 2008 Citation and Complaint. Based on the record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are issued:

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 May 2, 2008. Although the start of the scheduled hearing was delayed over fifteen (15) minutes to afford time in which to make an appearance, Complainant and Respondent did not appear either individually or by any authorized representative or counsel. 2. As is evident by his non-appearance, Complainant presented no evidence at the hearing in support of the allegations set forth in his 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. 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 the 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 M08-0246 be dismissed.[1] Done this day, June 4, 2008.

_______________________ Brian E. Smith 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 ___________________________ ----------------------- [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