ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308476063-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-03-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 28, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its authorized representative, Devin Breinholt. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, James Fierro. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Respondent is the holder of a Class L-67 (No. 155327) License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. There was no dispute that the Respondent dumped concrete, dirt, and other construction debris at the Complainant’s landfill site. 3. There was no dispute that the Respondent had agreed to pay the Complainant for all construction debris that the Respondent dumped at the Complainant’s landfill site. 4. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the sum of $5,670.00 is the proper balance due and owing to the Complainant from the Respondent. 5. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that notwithstanding repeated attempts and billings over a prolonged period of time, said balance of $5,670.00 remains unpaid. 6. The Respondent‘s failure to pay the aforementioned sum of $5,670.00 to the Complainant is not found to be in good faith and accordingly, under all of the facts and circumstances presented herein the Respondent’s conduct is found to constitute a violation of the applicable charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A).. 7. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior good license record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the charged section 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 credible testimony and evidence of record supported findings which establish that the Respondent violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (11) (Failure to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due). RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended, commencing on the effective date of the Registrar of Contractors’ Order, that the Respondent’s License be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives and accepts written proof that the Respondent has fully paid the sum of $5,670.00 to the Complainant. It is further recommended that if the Respondent pays the above described sum of money on or before the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, then the aforementioned indefinite license suspension shall not take place and this matter shall 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, March 28, 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