ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-12058-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-14
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SRD Excavation Corporation,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Tate Con LLC
License No. ROC 350295,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-12058-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 2, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant failed to appear. Robert Tate Stricklin, President and CEO of Tate Con LLC, appeared on behalf of Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Notice of Hearing Packet.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Tate Con LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 350295 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) in February 2024.
Complainant SRD Excavation Corporation is the holder License No. 345373 issued by the Registrar in June 2023.
On October 29, 2024, the Registrar received a Non-Payment Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging nonpayment in the amount of $26,495.27.
On November 25, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging the possible violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz.Rev.Stat.) § 32-1154(A)(10), failure to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connections with a licensee’s operations as a contractor.
The matter was not resolved informally between the parties.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On December 31, 2024, the Registrar issued its Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing to convene on February 4, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at the address and email address of record.
The matter was continued due to illness of Respondent’s representative.
On February 5, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order by email advising the parties the April 2, 2025 continued hearing would be conducted virtually by videoconference or telephone via Google Meet and providing the instructions to connect to the hearing.
The Tribunal convened the hearing through Google Meet on April 2, 2025.
Although the start of the hearing was delayed, Complainant did not appear. Complainant did not appear by videoconference or telephone and had not previously requested that the hearing be continued. Complainant did not contact the Tribunal indicating that he was having issues with the virtual or telephonic link. Consequently, Complainant did not present any evidence to support his allegations of nonpayment by Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 32-1101 et seq.
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
Complainant failed to appear and present any evidence to support the allegations of non-payment. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent is in violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that SRD Excavation Corporation’s Non-Payment Complaint against Tate Con LLC 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.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, April 14, 2024.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
R. Tate Stricklin
Tate Con LLC
[email redacted]
Seth Ryan Dixon
SRD Excavation Corporation
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff