ALJDEC

99F-0219-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-03-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 10, 1999 APPEARANCES: Dan Thomas, President, on behalf of the corporate Complainant No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________

The hearing was to commence at 1:30 p.m. on March 10, 1999. On March 9, 1999, the Respondent telephoned the Office of Administrative Hearings claiming that he had filed bankruptcy and would not be appearing at the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge did not receive the above information until March 10, 1999, and determined that insufficient information had been provided by the Respondent to conclude that the actual filing in bankruptcy had occurred and the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC §362(a) were in effect. Prior to the taking of any testimony, the Complainant was asked if he had any information regarding the asserted bankruptcy, and the Complainant submitted a copy of the Respondent’s Notice of Bankruptcy, dated March 2, 1999, and filed in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Case No. CV 98- 17192. The Respondent is the defendant in that case which was brought by a supplier. The evidence shows that the Respondent has filed a petition in bankruptcy, Case No. 99-02147 PHX GBN. The provisions of the automatic stay under 11 USC §362(a) apply to the commencement or continuation of a proceeding, including an administrative proceeding, that was or could have been commenced before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Among the exceptions to the automatic stay are a governmental unit’s legitimate enforcement of the police or regulatory power relating to public health, safety and welfare. Even then, the automatic stay provisions should not be lightly ignored. The instant case concerns the Complainant’s claim that he has overpaid the Respondent $1,135.00 and the Respondent has failed to re-pay this amount. In addition, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has failed to provide a lien release from suppliers. The above allegations were charged as violations of A.R.S. §32- 1154(A)(7), wrongful or fraudulent acts and (A)(11) failure to pay. Without judging the merits of this case, it concluded that on its face, the major concern of the case involves monetary issues rather than matters of public health, safety and welfare. Although the Registrar of Contractors may have a legitimate regulatory interest in matters involved in this complaint, no specific presentation was made as to those specific interests and absent such a presentation the Administrative Law Judge will not violate the provisions of the stay. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint be closed until such time as the provisions of the automatic stay no longer apply or relief from the provisions of the automatic stay has been obtained from the Bankruptcy Court. Done this day, March 15, 1999.

_________________________________ ALLEN REED Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826