ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-7100131-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-03-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING March 21, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants failed to appear. The Respondent failed to appear. The Registrar of Contractors appeared by and through Assistant Attorney General, Mary DeLaat Williams. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Complainants failed to present any evidence at the hearing in support of their claim of eligibility pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1131 and actual damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1132 (A). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainants have the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that they are eligible for payment from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1131 and that they have suffered actual damages as provided in A.R.S. § 32-1132 (A). 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 Complainants failed to sustain the required burden of establishing their eligibility pursuant to A.R.S. § A.R.S. § 32-1131 and their claim of actual damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1132 (A) by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence and, consequently, the credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Complainants are eligible for payment from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund or that the Complainants have suffered any actual damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1132 (A). RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Denial of Recovery Fund Claim be affirmed and that this matter 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 is 40 days from the date of that certification. Done this day, March 21, 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