ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-S0187-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-10-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|BRYAN JAY RAMSEY | | Docket Nos. 09F-S0179-ROC | |COMPLAINANT | |09F-S0187-ROC, and | |v. | |09F-S0189-ROC | |License No: 191633, Class: B- | | | |OROZCO BROTHERS INC dba | | | |SOUTHWEST TOTAL HOME SOLUTIONS | |ADMINISTRATIVE | |(CORP), | |LAW JUDGE DECISION | | | | | |And | | | | | | | |License No. 207099, Class B-03 of | | | |WESTERN HOME BUILDERS LLC (LLC) | | | |RESPONDENTS. | | | | | | |

HEARING: October 29, 2009; 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant Mr. Bryan Jay Ramsey represented himself. Respondent Orozco Brothers, Inc. was represented by Mr. Dan Orozco, Qualifying Party. Respondent Western Homes Builders, LLC was represented by Mr. Arnold Taylor, Project Supervisor, and Mr. Robert Gamez, owner. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ Based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDNIGS OF FACT 1. Complainant Mr. Bryan Jay Ramsey brought these three consolidated Complainants against the Respondent Orozco Brothers, Inc. and Respondent Western Home Builders, LLC, asserting that they had workmanship defects in their construction of his home. 2. The Complainant was assigned to a Registrar of Contractors Inspector who conducted a prehearing inspection, but could not find any defects in the work of Respondents because Complainant had already hired other contractors to perform work. Their work had removed or replaced Respondents’ work on the home which was the subjects of Complainant’s Complaints. 3. The agency record also revealed that the local building inspectors had inspected the Respondents’ work before it had been removed or replaced and passed the inspections of their work. 4. Subsequently, the home in question was burned down under suspicious circumstances. 5. Complainant filed a motion to continue the hearing of these cases less than 24 hours prior to the hearing, asserting as grounds that he is in poor health and he had hired another lawyer (he had had previous lawyers) who now would need his own good time to review the case and marshal evidence. 6. The motion to continue was taken up on the record of the hearing at the call of the case and denied. Respondents strenuously objected to the motion. Complainant produced only his own statement that he had given to a local mental health care provider where he himself said he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The statement was dated October 13, 2009, some two weeks prior to the hearing date. 7. When the Administrative Law Judge denied the motion, he invited Complainant to begin presenting his case, whereupon the Complainant said he had not brought any of his documents with him. He felt he was physically unable to continue with the hearing. He then voluntarily left the hearing room having not presented any evidence in support of his Complaints. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1156 and A.R.S. § 41-1092. 2. Complainant has brought these Complaints and therefore must carry the burden of proof. A.A.C. R2-19-119. 3. Continuances can be granted only for good cause and must be timely filed. A.A.C. R2-19-106, and -110. Such was not the case in Complainant’s motion. 4. Complainant, in leaving the hearing room without presenting any evidence failed to carry the burden of proving that any allegations against Respondents were true. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that Citations and Complaints S09-0179, S09-0187 and S09-0189, together with the Complaints on which they are based, be dismissed on the effective date of this Order (40 days after the date of service appearing on the Registrar’s certification on the Order). In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order shall be 40 days after the date of that certification. Done this day, October 30, 2009.

______________________________________ Grant Winston 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 ___________________________

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

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