ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2017A-1272-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2017-06-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Roofline Supply & Delivery,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Williams and Associates Consulting LLC,
License No: 296475,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2017A-1272-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 19, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.
APPEARANCES: Roofline Supply & Delivery (“Complainant”) failed to appear; Williams and Associates Consulting LLC appeared through its qualifying party/member, Victor Johnson.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
In February 2015, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. CR42.296475-D for dual roofing to Respondent.
Complainant is a supplier of roofing materials to contractors like Respondent.
In March 2017, the Registrar received a complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $83,501.73 for roofing supplies. Complainant provided its address on the complaint form as 700 N. Victory Blvd., Burbank, California 92603.
On April 14, 2017, the Registrar issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent filed a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint, denying any statutory violation.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On May 3, 2017, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a telephonic hearing on June 19, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. at the Registrar’s Tucson office. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Complainant at the address on its complaint.
Respondent’s qualifying party/member appeared for the duly noticed hearing.
Complainant did not request to appear telephonically and did not request that the hearing be continued. Complainant did not appear through an authorized officer or member, an employee, or an attorney, and did not contact the OAH. Consequently, Complainant did not present any evidence to prosecute its complaint against Respondent.
Respondent’s qualifying party/member stated that within the last week before the hearing, he had spoken to Complainant’s employee, who said that Complainant would withdraw its complaint because Respondent no longer owed anything to Complainant.
After the hearing, the Registrar forwarded an email from Complainant, advising that Respondent had paid the principle balance on the account but that “the only remaining balance due are collection costs.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This dispute lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction to resolve.
Because the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to the address on Complainant’s complaint was reasonable, Complainant is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Complainant’s failure to appear at the duly noticed hearing or to offer any evidence to prosecute its complaint precludes a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, Case No. 2017-1272 against Respondent Williams and Associates Consulting LLC’s License No. CR42.296475-D shall 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 five days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, June 19, 2017
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors