ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308472989-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-08-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 25, 2011 APPEARANCES: Paul Rudolph did not appear. Samons Bros. Framing, Inc. was represented by its attorney, Matthew Pierce, Esq. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the record in this matter, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Samons Bros. Framing, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 090350, a Class B contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Respondent performed framing work on a residence owned by Paul Rudolph (“Complainant”) located at 8686 East San Alberto Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona. 3. Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging deficient workmanship by Respondent in its performance of framing work on Complainant’s residence. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. 2010-[number redacted]. 4. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010- [number redacted] charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and (13), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1124(B). 5. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2010-[number redacted] to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 6. On April 8, 2011, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2010-[number redacted] advising the parties that a formal hearing would be conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings on May 12, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. 7. On April 18, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to continue the May 12, 2011 hearing. 8. On April 29, 2011, the tribunal issued an Order Granting Continuance that advised the parties that the hearing had been continued to July 7, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. 9. On May 16, 2011, Complainant filed a motion to continue the July 7, 2011 hearing. 10. On June 2, 2011, the tribunal issued a Order Granting Continuance that advised the parties that the July 7, 2011 hearing had been continued to July 25, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. The Order Granting Continuance was sent to the parties’ counsel at their addresses of record with the Office of Administrative Hearings. 11. On July 12, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated motion to continue the July 25, 2011 hearing. 12. On July 13, 2011, the tribunal issued an Order Denying Continuance that advised the parties that the hearing would convene as scheduled on July 25, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. The Order Denying Continuance was sent to the parties’ counsel at their addresses of record with the Office of Administrative Hearings. 13. On July 13, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to continue the July 25, 2011 hearing. 14. On July 13, 2011, the tribunal issued a second Order Denying Continuance that advised the parties that the hearing would convene as scheduled on July 25, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. The second Order Denying Continuance was sent to the parties’ counsel at their addresses of record with the Office of Administrative Hearings. 15. On July 25, 2011, the commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Complainant and/or his counsel. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive any communication from Complainant or his counsel that they were running late. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Complainant’s absence. 16. By his failure to appear at the hearing, Complainant failed to present any evidence to support the allegations against Respondent set forth in his Complaint. 17. There is no evidence that the parties had reached any settlement in this matter. On the contrary, Respondent was represented by counsel at the hearing and Respondent had in attendance a witness prepared to give testimony. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. By his failure to appear at the hearing, Complainant failed to sustain his burden of establishing that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and (13), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1124(B). RECOMMENDED ORDER The Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010-[number redacted] shall be dismissed on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. 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 40 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, August 12, 2011. /s/ Brian Brendan Tully 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