ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

10F-T0209-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2010-04-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 30, 2010 APPEARANCES: Edward T. Sedory did not appear. Latham Consolidated Companies, doing business as T L Consolidated Painting Co., was represented by its authorized representative, Jack Latham. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the record in this matter, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Latham Consolidated Companies, doing business as T L Consolidated Painting Co. (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 182977, a Class K-34 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Edward T. Sedory (“Complainant”) filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging deficient workmanship by Respondent on a garage floor coating project at Complainant’s residence in Tucson, Arizona. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. T10-0209. 3. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. T10-0209 charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108. 4. The Registrar forwarded Case No. T10-0209 to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 5. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. T10-0209 advising the parties of the time, date, and location of the formal hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties at their addresses of record with the Registrar. 6. The commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Complainant or an attorney authorized to represent him. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Complainant’s absence. 7. By his failure to appear at the hearing, Complainant failed to present any evidence to support the allegations contained in his Complaint. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. As a result of Complainant’s failure to appear at the hearing, Complainant failed to sustain his burden of proving that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9- 108, as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Citation and Complaint in Case No. T10-0209 shall be dismissed on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. 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, May 3, 2010.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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