ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-06299-LDA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-08-21
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Registrar of Contractors
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Arizona Sound & Light Inc
License No. 292550, 252684
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-06299-LDA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 1, 2024
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover, III represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). Cody Tretschok represented Arizona Sound & Light, Inc. (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A, A1-6, B, B1-6, and C.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On June 14, 2024, the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on August 1, 2024. See Exhibit C.
Respondent holds license No. 292550 and license No. 252684,
issued by Registrar. See Exhibits A-4 and B-4.
3. On or about January 9, 2024, Respondent submitted a Notice of Qualifying Party Disassociation to the Registrar removing its qualifying party on license No. 292550 and license No. 252684. See Exhibits A-2 and B-2.
4. Respondent failed to name another qualifying party on license No. 292550 and license No. 252684, within 60 days of the date of disassociation.
5. As a result, license No. 292550 and license No. 252684, held by Respondent, were suspended for lack of a qualifying party effective, April 6, 2024.
See Exhibits A-6 and B-6.
6. On April 11, 2024, the Registrar received an Application for Exemption from Qualifying Party Requirements for Respondent’s license No. 292550. See Exhibit B-1.
7. Through a Notice of Qualifying Party Exemption Denial dated May 17,
2024, the Registrar denied Respondent’s Application for Exemption from Qualifying Party Requirements for license No. 292550. See Exhibit B.
8. On April 11, 2024, the Registrar received an Application for Exemption from Qualifying Party Requirements for Respondent’s license No. 252684. See Exhibit A-1.
9. Through a Notice of Qualifying Party Exemption Denial dated May 17,
2024, Registrar denied Respondent’s Application for Exemption from Qualifying Party Requirements for license No. 252684. See Exhibit A.
10. Respondent requested a hearing regarding both Denials.
11. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
12. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of its Assistant General Counsel, Robert Stirling. Cody Tretschok, Respondent’s owner, testified on behalf of Respondent.
13. Respondent does not dispute that its licenses were suspended effective April 4, 2024. Mr. Tretschok expressed that Respondent’s former qualifying party (Chad Bessette) told him that he would handle all of the necessary requirements.
Mr. Tretschok stated that he is willing to close the electrical license. However, Mr. Tretschok desires to keep the low voltage license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Complainant bears the burden of persuasion. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(1).
The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The 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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
“A licensee may apply in writing to the registrar for exemption from a qualifying party. The licensee must show to the satisfaction of the registrar that during the past five years the licensee: 1. Held a valid and active license and could legally contract under this chapter for the entire five-year period.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1125(C).
The undisputed evidence shows that license No. 292550 and license No. 252684 were suspended effective April 4, 2024. Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish that license No. 292550 and license No. 252684, were valid and active and that Respondent could legally contract during the entire five-year period preceding the date of the Applications.
Respondent has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the requirements for a qualifying party exemption under Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1125(C).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Arizona Sound & Light Inc’s appeal be denied.
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, August 21, 2024.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Arizona Sound & Light Inc
[email redacted]
Charles S. Hover, III
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff