ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-00450-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-04-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Action Gypsum Supply,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Romo Drywall LLC

ROC License No. 341796,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-00450-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 16, 2024 at 1:00 PM.

APPEARANCES: No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Action Gypsum Supply (“Complainant”). Jorge Romo appeared on behalf of Romo Drywall LLC (“Respondent”). Maria VanDorian served as the Spanish language interpreter for the proceedings.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

On or about January 03, 2024, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) received a 2-item complaint from Complainant against ROC License No. 341796 that nonpayment of materials against Respondent. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2023-14011 and assigned the case to Madelyn Hayes for investigation.

On February 02, 2024, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent was given until February 17, 2024, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. On February 11, 2024, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer.

On February 16, 2024, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on April 16, 2024.

On March 01, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice”) in the above-captioned matter which set a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, at 1:00 p.m. on April 16, 2024. The Notice noted, in pertinent part, as follows:

Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person.

* * *

SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED

The Complaint and Citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s):

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10)

(Emphasis in original.)

Neither correspondence was returned as undeliverable from Complainant.

On March 01, 2024, OAH issued a Hearing Order that provided remote participation information to the parties. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Complainant.

On April 15, 2024, Respondent request foreign language interpretation services, which OAH scheduled the same date.

Hearing Evidence

On April 16, 2024, though afforded a twenty (20) minute grace period, Complainant failed to appear.

No correspondence was received on behalf of Complainant to provide notice of unavailability, appear via alternative means, or continue.

No settlement is on file for this matter at OAH.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1101 et seq. and 32-1154(A). The matter was properly brought before OAH pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1092 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation at issue, and that as such, grounds exist for the Registrar to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s contracting license. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“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 has 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.”

Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R2-19-117 provides that if a party fails to appear at a hearing, the administrative law judge may vacate the hearing and return the matter to the agency for any further action.

Here, Complainant failed to appear without establishing good cause. As such, it must be concluded that Complainant defaulted its appearance.

Because Complainant failed to sustain their burden of proof in the matter, due to their defaulted appearance(s), Complaint No. 2024-00450 must be dismissed.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Registrar close Complaint No. 2023-14011, without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-111(4), that this matter is remanded to the Registrar for further action, if any.

NOTICE

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, April 19, 2024.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Romo Drywall LLC, Respondent

6732 W Monterosa St.

Phoeni, AZ 85033

[email redacted]

Action Gypsum Supply, Complainant

13940 Magnolia Ave.

Chino, CA 91710

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff