ALJDEC

98F-2649-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-01-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

On January 7, 1999, at 1:30 p.m., a hearing was held to determine if the Respondent had violated provisions of the A.R.S. §32-1154(A). The Complainant failed to appear. The Respondent also failed to appear. The record was kept open until approximately 1:55 p.m. to allow for the appearance of the Complainant or the receipt of any information which would constitute good cause for the Complainant’s absence or delay. No such information was received from or on the behalf of the Complainant. Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Decision are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Complainant and the Respondent failed to appear for the hearing scheduled on January 7, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. at the Office of Administrative Hearings located at 1700 West Washington Street, Suite 602, Phoenix, Arizona. The Notice of Hearing correctly states the date, time and place of this hearing. The Notice of Hearing was properly sent by certified mail to the Complainant and the Respondent (as stated in the Notice of Hearing received by the Office of Administrative Hearings).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Complainant has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues is by a preponderance of the evidence. Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). 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). It "is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Black's Law Dictionary, 1182 (6th ed. 1990).

2. The Complainant has failed to appear and present evidence supporting her position. The Complainant has failed to carry the burden of proving that the Respondent has violated provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A).

3. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Respondent has not violated A.R.S. §32- 1154(A)(3)(7)(23) and R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED DECISION

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge recommends that the entire Citation and Complaint in Case Number 98-2649 be dismissed.

Done this day, January 7, 1999.

_________________________________ Casey J. Newcomb Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of January, 1999, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo

By _______________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1700 West Washington, Suite 602 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826