ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2016A-278-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-07-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 1, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: Walter Edward Conway (“Complainant”) failed to appear; N & L Investment Corporation DBA: Ptizer’s One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning and N & L Investment Corporation DBA: Benjamin Franklin Plumbing of Western Arizona (“Respondents”) appeared through Larry Thornton, qualifying party/officer. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License Nos. R-39.059892-R, C-79.068985-C, and CR37.269519-D to Respondents. 2. The Registrar received a complaint against Respondent from Complainant. Complainant provided his mailing address on the complaint form. 3. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“the OAH”), an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 4. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a teleconference hearing on July 1, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. at the Registrar’s Flagstaff office. The Notice of Hearing advised Complainant that “[f]ailure to attend the scheduled hearing is likely to result in an adverse ruling against you.” 5. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Complainant at the address on his complaint. 6. Although the start of the hearing was delayed thirty minutes, Complainant did not request to appear telephonically, did not appear personally or through an attorney, and did not contact the OAH to request a continuance or that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Complainant did not present any evidence to prosecute his complaint to the Registrar against Respondent. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Complainant at the address that he provided was reasonable and he is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.[1] 2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.[2] 3. Complainant by failing to appear or to present any evidence at the duly noticed hearing failed to meet his burden to establish that Respondent violated the charged statutes. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order, the Registrar dismiss Complainant Jacob Smith’s complaint in Case 2011-6409 against Respondent All Star Exteriors, L.L.C.’s License No. C-42.269835-R. 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 five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, July 5, 2016.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D). [2] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837, 838 (1952).

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

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