ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308477723-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-06-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 24, 2011 APPEARANCES: Kirch Construction, Inc. did not appear. Caymus Corporation was represented by its authorized representative, Randy Ringleb. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Kirch Construction, Inc. (“Complainant”) is the holder of License No. 189970 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Caymus Corporation (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 192323 issued by the Registrar. 3. On December 20, 2010, Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging non-payment by Respondent for foundation work performed by Complainant at 12575 N. Via Linda, Scottsdale, Arizona. 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) (11). 5. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2010-[number redacted] to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 6. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2010-[number redacted] that advised the parties of the time, date, and location of the formal hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties at their addresses of record with the Registrar. 7. The commencement of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Complainant’s authorized representative. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Complainant’s absence. 8. Respondent’s authorized representative, Randy Ringleb, avowed that the parties had not reached a settlement agreement. 9. By its failure to appear at the hearing, Complainant failed to present any evidence in support of its Complaint. 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 its failure to appear at the hearing, Complainant failed to sustain its burden of proving that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (11), as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010-[number redacted] shall be dismissed on the effective date of the Order entered in that 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, June 29, 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