ALJDEC

00F-F0127-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-05-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 9, 2000. APPEARANCES: The Complainants, Joann and George Shover, appeared personally. Respondent was represented by its owner, Michael Thomas Stark, and its qualifying party, Michelle Stark. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainants hired Respondent to install floor tiles in their Cottonwood home. 2. Complainants subsequently filed a complaint against Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors alleging that Respondent violated the State’s contracting laws. 3. Complainants also filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent in the Verde Valley Justice Court of Yavapai County. 4. Respondent filed a counterclaim against the Complainants in the civil lawsuit. 5. Case No. CV20000767 went to trial before the Justice Court on April 17, 2000. The allegations set forth in Complainants’ Registrar of Contractors complaint are identical to the allegations in the civil lawsuit. At the conclusion of the trial, the Justice Court rendered judgment to the Respondent on its counterclaim against Complainants. Complainants’ request for relief was denied. 6. At this administrative hearing, the Complainants plan to challenge the Registrar of Contractors inspector’s finding that Respondent did not violate the State’s contracting laws. The Justice Court gave strong weight to the inspector’s findings, which Complainants had had an opportunity to challenge and rebut at the civil trial. 7. Respondent requests that the Citation and Complaint be dismissed due to the issues in dispute in this administrative hearing having been fully litigated in the concluded Justice Court civil litigation. 8. It is determined that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to the contested issues within the scope of this hearing that have been previously litigated and adjudicated in the parties’ civil action. The judgment of the Justice Court can be used to establish or defend against any allegations of statutory violations of the State’s contracting laws having been committed by Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The doctrine of res judicata precludes the parties from collaterally attacking in an administrative hearing issues between the parties that have been fully litigated and adjudicated in the Justice Court civil action. 2. Respondent has not violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) and (3); namely Rule R4-9-108. 3. The Citation and Complaint in this matter should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint in this matter be dismissed. Done this day, May 26, 2000

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

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

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater, Director 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