ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2011A-2071-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-11-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 23, 2011 APPEARANCES: Complainant failed to appear; Thomas P. Morrison, corporate President and Qualifying Party, appeared for Respondent. ROC Inspector Dennis Cook also appeared. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On November 22, 2011, late in the afternoon, Complainant contacted this tribunal by telephone and stated that he could not attend the hearing set for November 23, 2011, because he “was ill.” He was told to make a written motion, but stated that he could not put anything in writing. He provided a telephone number to staff and stated he would try to submit something through the website. 2. At approximately 4:00 PM, Complainant filed an electronic motion with this tribunal that stated: “Because of a Leg [sic] injury that acurred [sic] 11/21/2011 I am unable to attend the hearing.” The statement does not request a postponement of the hearing date, does not elaborate on the extent of the injury and how it prevents him from attending the hearing, and does not provide a telephone number at which to reach him to discuss the motion. The electronic filing does state that it was sent to Respondent’s e-mail address. 2. Shortly after receiving the electronic filing, Office of Administrative Hearings staff contacted Complainant and told him (by voicemail left on his phone) that his motion would be addressed as a preliminary matter at the hearing on November 23, 2011, and that he could appear by telephone to discuss the motion if he called into the Office of Administrative Hearings at the time for hearing. 3. At the time for hearing on November 23, 2011, Complainant did not appear, nor did he call in to the Office of Administrative Hearings. 4. Respondent’s representative Thomas Morrison and the ROC Inspector appeared for the hearing. Morrison stated that he had not received the electronic filing, but that his e-mail address on the filing was accurate. He objected to a continuance. 5. The electronic filing does not contain adequate information to show good cause for a postponement of the hearing. There is no statement that the “leg injury” prevents Complainant from appearing or, if it does, how it does. Neither is there even a request to postpone the hearing or a statement of available dates. The filing is simply a statement that Complainant cannot attend the hearing. On its face, it is just as likely to be a withdrawal of the complaint as it is a motion to continue. 6. If treated as a motion to continue, the motion is denied for lack of good cause. 7. Therefore, Complainant failed to appear at the hearing. The tribunal waited 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time, but no one appeared for Complainant. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By failing to appear at the hearing, Complainant did not meet the burden to present evidence in support of the complaint.[1] RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this complaint 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 will be 40 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, November 23, 2011.

/s/ Eric A. Bryant Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119.

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826