ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-2264616-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-08-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 17, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant failed to appear. The Respondent failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on Compliance Hearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Order Reopening Complaint and Setting Compliance Hearing provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At the Compliance Hearing, the parties’ may offer evidence and testimony as to whether or not Respondent has engaged in conduct constituting violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) and (11) as set forth in the Citation and Complaint and breached the terms set forth in the parties’ November 3, 2009 Settlement Agreement. If the assigned Administrative Law Judge recommends that discipline is to be imposed upon Respondent’s License, and the Registrar adopts such recommendation, the discipline may be imposed immediately, based upon a finding that in addition to any violation of contracting laws that have been committed by Respondent, Respondent further breached the parties’ Settlement Agreement. 2. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish a breach of the parties’ Settlement Agreement. 3. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that the Respondent had engaged in conduct constituting violations of A.R.S. § 32- 1154 (A) (7) (wrongful or fraudulent act) and A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (11) (failure to pay monies in excess of seven hundred and fifty dollars when due for materials or services). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the compliance hearing for this matter, failed to sustain the required burden of proving the charges set forth in its request for compliance hearing by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence and, consequently, the credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Respondent has violated the parties’ Settlement Agreement or that the Respondent has violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (7) and .A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (11). 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, August 17, 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