ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-07173-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-12-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Wilhelmina Daubman,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

SunUp America LLC,

License Nos. ROC 325273, 325608, 333266,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-07173-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 6, 2024

APPEARANCES: Neither Complainant nor Respondent appeared. Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors issued a Notice of Hearing on August 27, 2024 setting this matter for an administrative hearing on October 11, 2024. The Notice of Hearing informed the parties that they would receive an ORDER from the Tribunal with the information regarding a virtual session. The Notice also indicated that a party could appear in person if they requested to do so.

2. On August 27, 2024, the Tribunal also issued an ORDER setting the matter for a virtual hearing session on October 11, 2024. The ORDER contained a link to the virtual setting and a phone number at either of which the parties could appear.

3. On October 11, 12024, after neither party appeared virtually, the Tribunal issued a further ORDER resetting the matter for November 6, 2024 to assure that the parties had received fair notice of the administrative hearing. The ORDER contained a new link to a new virtual setting and a phone number through either of which the parties could appear.

4. On November 6, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge opened each of the virtual settings, one at a time. Only ROC Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared each time.

5. On November 6, 2024, Complainant failed to appear at the noticed hearing that had been scheduled in response to the appeal. Complainant did not request to appear in person.

6. On November 6, 2024, Respondent failed to appear at the noticed hearing. Respondent did not request to appear in person.

7. Neither party subsequently contacted the Tribunal with regard to their failure to have appeared or with some good cause reason for their failure to appear.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing is generally upon the petitioner, here the Complainant. Utah Construction Company v. Berg et al, 68 Ariz. 285, 205 P.2d 367 1949).

2. Based on both party’s failure to appear, one may conclude that the matter was resolved. However, the Tribunal did not receive any such notification.

3. Based on the foregoing, in this case, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant has failed to meet the burden to demonstrate any allegations in her Complainant and, therefore, Complainant’s case should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Complainant’s case be dismissed.

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 23, 2024.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

SunUp America LLC

625 S. Smith Rd., Suite 11

Tempe, AZ 85288

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Wilhelmina Daubman

5359 N Canyon Trails Dr

Kingman, AZ 86409

[email redacted]

Cliff Corlett

Registrar of Contractors

1845 McCulloch Boulevard, Suite B-5

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff