PDF copy: ORDER: NUNC PRO TUNC decision/ka

19A-001-NOT · Secretary of State · 2019-04-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Marcela A. Salgado, No. 19A-001-NOT Petitioner, vs NUNC PRO TUNC Arizona Secretary of State, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Respondent. DECISION

HEARING: March 1, 2019 APPEARANCES: Marcela A. Salgado (Petitioner) failed to appear. Assistant Attorney General Kyle Cummings, Esq. represented the Arizona Secretary of State (SOS). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn _____________________________________________________________________

This Nunc Pro Tunc Administrative Law Decision is issued to correct scrivener’s typographical errors. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. SOS referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s appeal of SOS’s denial of a Notary Commission. 2. On January 3, 2018, SOS issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing on March 1, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. at the OAH. The Notice of Hearing advised that “[i]f the Petitioner fails to appear, the Administrative Law Judge may proceed in the Petitioner’s absence.” 3. SOS mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Petitioner at the address of record on her application. 4. Although the start of the hearing was delayed, Petitioner did not request to appear telephonically, did not appear personally or through an attorney, and did not contact OAH to request a continuance or that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding her appeal of SOS’s denial of a Notary Commission.

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Notice of Hearing that SOS mailed to Petitioner at the address she

provided on her application was reasonable; there is no evidence that the notice was

returned to the SOS.

2. Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that SOS violated applicable

law by wrongfully, inappropriately, or incorrectly denying her Notary Commission under

the circumstances of this case by a preponderance of the evidence.1

3. By failing to appear or to present any evidence at the duly noticed hearing

Petitioner failed to bear her burden to establish the merits of her appeal.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order, the Arizona Secretary of State’s denial of a Notary Commission to Petitioner Marcela A. Salgado’s shall be affirmed and Petitioner’s appeal of that denial of a Notary Commission shall 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 five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, March 21, 2019. /s/ Kay Abramsohn Administrative Law Judge Transmitted electronically to:

Evelia McGee, Notary Public Complaint Coordinator Arizona Secretary of State

See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(1); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837, 838 (1952).