ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-59081585-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-05-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 26, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant failed to appear. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Rhonda LaNue. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for a Compliance Hearing to determine whether the Respondent had fully complied with the terms the February 9, 2010, Order of the Registrar. The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on Compliance Hearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Complainant failed to present any evidence at the hearing in support of her allegations that the Respondent had failed to fully comply with the terms of the Registrar’s Order of February 9, 2010. 2. There was no dispute that the Respondent had fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s Order of February 9, 2010. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent failed to fully comply with the terms of the Registrar’s Order of February 9, 2010. See Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 437-38, 930 P.2d 508 (Ariz. App. 1996). 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). 3. Proof by preponderance of the evidence “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). 4. The Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing for this matter, failed to sustain the required burden of proving the charges set forth in her allegations of noncompliance 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 failed to fully comply with the terms of the Registrar’s Order of February 9, 2010. RECOMMENDed order on compliance hearing In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be closed in accordance with the terms of the Registrar’s Order of February 9, 2010. 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, May 26, 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