ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-2782W-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-09-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|MARIO MADRID | | Nos. 09F-2782-ROC | | | |09F-2782W-ROC | | | |ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE | |COMPLAINANT, | |DECISION | |-v- | | | | | | | |License No. 245257, Class B-02 of | | | |BEST 1 CORP (CORP) | | | |License No. 239088, Class L-07 of | | | |BEST 1 CORP (CORP) | | | | | | | | | | | |RESPONDENT. | | | | | | |

HEARING: September 8, 2009 APPEARANCES: Complainant Mario Madrid failed to appear. John Vergopia appeared on behalf of Respondent Best 1 Corp. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On September 8, 2009 at 1:30 p.m., this matter came on for hearing pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued by the Registrar of Contractors, to address whether Respondent Best 1 Corp (“Best 1”) should be subject to discipline for acts or omissions in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). At the time set for hearing, John Vergopia appeared on behalf of Best 1. Complainant Mario Madrid failed to appear or be represented. The Administrative Law Judge delayed the start of the scheduled hearing for approximately fifteen (15) minutes so as to allow added time for appearance by or on behalf of Mr. Madrid. When Mr. Madrid continued in his failure to appear after the expiration of a fifteen minute grace period, the Administrative Law Judge convened the hearing and proceeded in Mr. Madrid’s absence. 2. Mr. Vergopia made a motion to dismiss. Because Mr. Madrid failed to appear at hearing, he did not present any evidence in support of the allegations set forth in the complaint herein. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Mr. Madrid, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing, failed to sustain the required burden of proving the charges set forth in the Citation and Complaint by a preponderance of the evidence, and consequently the instant record does not support any finding that Best 1 has violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). See Arizona Administrative Code Rule R2-19-119. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, and in light of the lack of prosecution by Mr. Madrid, it is recommended that this Citation, together with the Complaint upon which it is based, be dismissed. 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 will be 40 days from the date of that certification. Done this day, September 9, 2009.

______________________________________ Sondra J. Vanella Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

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