ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2007A-2383492-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-12-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 22, 2011, at 8:15 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants failed to appear. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Lorena Chavez. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for a Compliance Hearing to determine whether the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s March 17, 2009 Order. Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on Compliance Hearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Order Setting Compliance Hearing provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon review and consideration, and with good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that a Compliance Hearing be scheduled in the expedited course of docketing in the Yuma area. At the Compliance Hearing, the parties’ may offer evidence and testimony as to whether or not Respondent has complied with the terms of the Registrar’s March 17, 2009 Order. If it is determined that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s directive, Respondent’s License shall be subject to the immediate imposition of discipline. 2. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent has fully corrected the foul odor problem with the Complainants’ kitchen sink. 3. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent has fully corrected the north wall of the garage, including the unacceptable bulge, stucco cracking and nail pops. . 4. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the July 17, 2007 Corrective Work Order issued in this matter. 5. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s March 17, 2009 Order. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of evidence that the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s March 17, 2009 Order. 2. Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.” In re Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648, 654 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). It “is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (rev. 6th ed. 1990). 3. The Respondent sustained its burden of proof by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence that it has fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s March 17, 2009 Order. RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be closed. In the event of certification of this 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 the certification.

Done this day, December 22, 2011. /s/ M. Douglas 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