ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2013A-5301-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-10-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 22, 2015, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Primera Iglesia Del Nazareno (hereinafter “Complainant”) failed to appear. No representative for Complainant appeared by 8:20 a.m., on October 22, 2015, and, consequently, the matter was not convened and no evidence was taken. Camelback Paving Co. In., (hereinafter “Respondent”) appeared through its qualifying party, David Zuckerman. Investigator Stephen N. Lawton was present for the hearing. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________ The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order 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 Complaint herein. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent 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 complaint by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence and, consequently, the credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Respondent has violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A). RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter 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 the Order will be 5 days from the date of the certification. Done this day, October 22, 2015.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

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

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