ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-08959-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-12-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
K&G Construction LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Ansco & Associates LLC,
License No. ROC 341287,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-08959-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION
HEARING: November 17, 2023
APPEARANCES: Craig Clark, VP of Operations, and Aron Soffer, Finance Officer, for Ansco & Associates. Complainant failed to appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Record [Documents from ROC with Notice of Hearing].
FINDINGS OF FACT
On October 4, 2023, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) advising the parties of the hearing date and time of November 17, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at the Office of Administrative Hearings located at 1740 West Adams, Lower Level, Phoenix, Arizona. The Notice was sent to the parties at the known addresses and through electronic mail on record with the ROC.
The ROC Notice further informed the parties that in cases which are resolved by the parties after the Notice is issued but prior to adjudication, they should notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement.
By ORDER dated October 12, 2023, the Tribunal also provided to the parties the information for their virtual appearances for the November 17, 2023 administrative hearing.
While Respondent’s representatives were present virtually at 9:00 a.m. for the hearing, Complainant was not present virtually.
The Tribunal waited a minimum of 15 minutes to convene the hearing in order to afford additional time for Complainant to appear. During that time, Complainant had not contacted the Office of Administrative Hearings to advise of any reason for a delay in their appearance. The hearing proceeded in Complainant’s absence to complete the hearing record.
Respondent’s representatives provided sworn credible testimony regarding the matter having been resolved through its payments, in two checks, to Complainant. The two checks were made as follows: (a) WF00002771 on September 28, 2023; and (b) WF00002912 on October 10, 2023.
Respondent further indicated that Complainant had notified Respondent through email that Complainant had gone to their mail box and found the two checks.
While Respondent indicated it believed the email had been copied to either the ROC or the Tribunal, as of the date of the hearing, the Tribunal had not received an email from either party.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing is generally upon the petitioner. Utah Construction Company v. Berg et al, 68 Ariz. 285, 205 P.2d 367 1949).
2. Based on Complainant’s failure to appear and present any evidence with regard to its Petition, Complainant’s Complaint should be dismissed and the ROC should consider this matter as closed with no discipline imposed on Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Complainant’s Complaint be dismissed and the matter be closed with no discipline imposed on Respondent’s license.
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, December 4, 2023.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
[email redacted]
K&G Construction LLC
[email redacted]
Ansco & Associates LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff