ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308475050-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-07-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 8, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant failed to appear. The Respondents appeared through their attorneys, John E. Drazkowki and Michael Warzynski. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Orders are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Complainant failed to present any evidence at the hearing in support of the allegations set forth in the Complaints herein. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents violated the charged sections of the state’s contracting laws. 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 the complaints by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence and, consequently, the credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Respondents have violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (15) (Acting in the capacity of a contractor under any license issued under this chapter in a name other than as set forth upon the license) and A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (16) (False, misleading or deceptive advertising whereby any member of the public may be misled and injured). RECOMMENDed orders 1. (Case No.2010-[number redacted]) In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint against License No. 215776, Class C-39 of AM HAC dba ADVANCED MECHANICAL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING (LLC) be dismissed. 2. (Case No. 2011-16) In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint against License No. 215777, Class L-39 of AM HAC dba ADVANCED MECHANICAL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING (LLC) be dismissed.

In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of these Orders will be 40 days from the date of the certification.

Done this day, July 8, 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