ALJDEC

00F-2063-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-09-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

On September 27, 2000, a hearing was scheduled to determine if the Respondent had violated provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A). Attorney Aaron Kizer represented the Respondent. Thomas A. LaVoy appeared on behalf of the Complainant. After convening this disciplinary hearing, the parties settled this matter.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Kenneth Mamode is the owner and qualifying party of Pacific A E C, Ltd. Thomas A. LaVoy is the owner of T N T Concrete Cutting. On or about August 18, 1999, the parties entered into a verbal agreement for the Complainant to perform concrete cutting work at a Chinese restaurant. The Respondent was the general contractor for the remodeling of the Chinese restaurant. The Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant $2,643.50 for the concrete cutting work.

2. Mr. Mamode testified that the remodeling work at the Chinese restaurant turned into a complete rebuilding of the restaurant. Mr. Mamode testified that the restaurant still owes him about $79,000.00 for the work performed at the restaurant. Mr. Mamode testified that he currently is pursuing a lawsuit against the restaurant.

3. Mr. Mamode testified that the Complainant’s work was timely and professional. However, Mr. Mamode testified that he could not pay the Complainant because the restaurant failed to pay him the aforementioned $79,000.00. Mr. Mamode testified that he has only one other ongoing project (i.e., a gas station).

4. The parties agreed to settle this matter. The Settlement Agreement is as follows: a. The Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant $100.00 per month, beginning October 1, 2000, until the $2,643.50 is fully paid. The Respondent has until the 20th of each month to make the payment; and b. The Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant the balance owing on their verbal contract if the Respondent is fully paid on the gas station project or the Respondent is successful in the Chinese restaurant lawsuit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Public policy favors the settlement of disputes. Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge accepts the Settlement Agreement as set forth in Finding of Fact #4. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge further concludes that this Settlement Agreement is both fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

2. The Settlement Agreement reached and submitted during the hearing in this matter warrants the termination of this hearing. However, the Settlement Agreement does not bar the Complainant from requesting a Compliance Hearing if the Respondent fails to timely and properly perform pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

RECOMMENDED DECISION In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar of Contractors accept and approve the aforementioned Settlement Agreement between the parties. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge further recommends that the Citation and Complaint in Case Number 00-2063 be dismissed. Done this day, October 2, 2000.

______________________________________ Casey J. Newcomb Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of October, 2000, to:

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