ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

24F-LTA017-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing - LTA · 2024-10-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Stephanie Herrington, et al.,

Petitioner,

Grand Missouri MHP et al.,

Respondent.

No. 24F-LTA017-ADH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HVIRTUAL HEARING: September 19, 2024

APPEARANCES: Attorney Scott A. Baluha appeared, representing Grand Missouri MHP (Respondent) and Rudy Mariscal. Stephanie Herrington (Petitioner) failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department’s Notice of Hearing Packet.

Background

On or about May 28, 2024, Petitioner filed a Petition through the Department of Housing (Department) for a hearing regarding alleged violations by Respondent of Arizona state laws.

Respondent filed its Response to the Petition in July 2024, denying the allegations and indicating that Petitioner was neither a resident nor subject to any rental agreement with Respondent.

On July 29, 2024, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing (Notice) advising the parties of a hearing date and time of September 19, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH or Tribunal) located at 1740 West Adams, Lower Level, in Phoenix, Arizona. The Notice was emailed to the parties at the addresses of record with the Department.

On September 6, 2024, the Tribunal issued an ORDER to the parties regarding the hearing to be held virtually and the ORDER provided both a virtual/online link and a telephone number for the parties to be able to access the virtual hearing session.

Hearing

On September 19, 2024, the Tribunal waited virtually a minimum of 15 minutes before specifically convening the hearing in order to afford additional time for Petitioner to appear; she failed to appear.

Petitioner did not contact the Tribunal prior to, or at the time of the hearing, to advise of any reason for her absence or a delay, nor did she request that the hearing be continued. Therefore, the hearing convened in Petitioner’s absence. At no time during the virtual session did the virtual session drop or disconnect.

At the administrative hearing, Respondent indicated that they had contact earlier in the month with Petitioner in regard to Maricopa County Superior Court proceedings but had not heard from her in regard to this administrative matter.

Respondent moved to vacate the hearing and dismiss the Petition based on Petitioner’s failure to appear and proceed with the Petition.

Petitioner subsequently arrived at the OAH at approximately 10:25 a.m. and provided a written statement indicating, in pertinent part, as follows:

On Sept. 19th 2024 at 9am I called the number given on the paper that I received from the receptionist in the office of Administrative hearings. I was waiting on the phone approx. 6 mins – while waiting, a voice would periodically say “you have joined the call but you are the only one here.” At about 9:07am the call was dropped.

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). See also A.A.C. R2-19-117.

2. Based on Petitioner’s failure to appear and proceed with her Petition, the Petition should be dismissed.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 41-4063(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. Section 41-4065. Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Director of the Department of Housing within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000ORDERED this day, October 9, 2024.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Joan Serviss, Director

Arizona Department of Housing

Scott A. Baluha

Zona Law Group P.C.

[email redacted]

Stephanie Herrington

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff