ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-00718-LDA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-06-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Registrar of Contractors,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Assured Builders Group Inc.
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-00718-LDA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 06, 2023 at 9:00 AM.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Seth Hargraves, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Respondent”) with Chance Peterson as a witness. No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Assured Builders Group Inc. (“Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On February 08, 2023, Complainant issued a Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on March 16, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., at the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) in Phoenix, Arizona. The Notice provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
A [Google Meet] link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person.
(Emphasis in original.)
Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On February 09, 2023, the undersigned issued a Hearing Order to the parties that contained remote participation information for the aforementioned matter. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On March 07, 2023, Complainant submitted proposed Exhibits 1-8.
On March 09, 2023, Complainant submitted a Motion to Continue, which was granted by the Tribunal. The matter was scheduled for a Status Update on April 17, 2023.
On April 17, 2023, Complainant requested that the matter be placed back on the Tribunal’s calendar for hearing, which was granted. A Minute Entry – Granting Continuance was issued the same date setting the matter for hearing on June 06, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On June 06, 2023, although afforded a fifteen minute grace period, Respondent failed to appear for the hearing. No written request to appear via alternative means or continue the matter was received by or on behalf of Respondent. Respondent is deemed to have defaulted its appearance.
There is no Settlement Order on file for this case at OAH.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and was properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
Respondent bears the burden to establish that it meets statutory qualifications for a contractor’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that as the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
The legislature did not intend for the Registrar to deny a license application based solely on a technicality and in the face of evidence that the applicant is otherwise qualified.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1122(C) provides, in pertinent part, that a lack of good character and reputation “may be established by showing that a person engaged in contracting without a license.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1123(A) provides that it is a violation for any person named on a license to make a “[m]isrepresentation of a material fact ... in obtaining a license.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(5) precludes granting a license to an entity that has submitted a bid without a license within one year of the application.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(20) provides that a person named on the license who is or was named on any other license in this state or in another state that is under suspension or revocation for any act or omission that occurs while the person is or was named on the license unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.
Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-117 provides that if a party fails to appear at a hearing, the administrative law judge may proceed with the presentation of the evidence of the appearing party, or vacate the hearing and return the matter to the agency for any further action.
In the case at bar, however, a detailed factual analysis is not necessary because Respondent failed to appear. As such, Respondent has also failed to sustain its burden of proof in the matter.
Therefore, Respondent’s appeal is denied.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar deny Respondent’s appeal.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Registrar affirm the denial of Application No. 00922882.
NOTICE
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, June 06, 2023.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
c/o Legal Department
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Assured Builders Group Inc., Respondent
10105 E. Via Linda Dr., Ste. 103-328
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Seth T. Hargraves, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General, Counsel for the Registrar
1275 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
By: OAH Staff