ALJDEC

99F-M1127-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-11-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

On November 18, 1999 at 9:00 a.m., a hearing was held to determine if the Respondent had violated provisions of the A.R.S. §32-1154(A). Garret Moss appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The Complainant failed to appear. The record was kept open until approximately 9:25 a.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 failed to appear for the hearing scheduled on November 18, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the Office of Administrative Hearings located at 1400 West Washington Street, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona. The Notice of Hearing correctly states the date, time and place of this hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent by certified mail to the Complainant at 1964 E. Chilton Drive, Tempe, Arizona 85283 (as stated in the Notice of Hearing received by the Office of Administrative Hearings). The undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complainant was properly noticed for this disciplinary hearing. 2. Garret Moss, the Respondent’s owner and qualifying party, requested that this matter be dismissed.

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 its position. The Complainant has failed to meets its burden of proving that the Respondent has violated provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A). Accordingly, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that grounds do not exist to discipline the Respondent’s license pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(7)&(11).

RECOMMENDED DECISION

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge recommends that the entire Citation and Complaint in Case Number M99-1127 be dismissed.

Done this day, November 18, 1999.

______________________________________ Casey J. Newcomb Administrative Law Judge

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

Mr. Michael P. Goldwater 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