ALJDEC

00F-R0018W-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-04-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 26, 2000 APPEARANCES: Complainant was represented by Assistant Attorney General, Mary DeLaat Williams and Glendale Mechanical (“Glendale”) appeared through its owner, Richard Griesemer, who also appeared on behalf of Hasco HVAC of Arizona, Inc. (“Hasco”), in his capacity as an employee of that company. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________

Based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Following a prolonged discussion between the parties, prior to commencing the instant hearing, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were read upon the record.

2. Pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement, the parties agreed as follows:

a. Glendale will accept a finding that it violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154A (21), which shall result in the imposition of a one year period of disciplinary probation. b. Glendale will provide Complainant with a copy of a fully executed release from the Harlan Company (“Harlan”), along with a copy of the check that it used to satisfy the Registrar of Contractors complaint filed by Harlan in case no. 98-1757 (the underlying matter that caused the instant Citation and Complaint to be issued). c. Due to the fact that the license of Hasco, named in the instant Citation and Complaint, is expired and based on the aforementioned fact that Respondents have apparently resolved the issue in Registrar of Contractors case no. 98-1757, Complainant agreed to dismiss the instant Citation and Complaint against Hasco.

3. The parties agreed that all rights and defenses were to be merged into the settlement agreement and if any petition for rehearing of this matter was to be filed and granted, or if any new complaint was filed, the sole issues for determination shall be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement.

4. The terms of the forgoing settlement appeared to be reasonable under all the circumstances and the agreement was determined to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The policy of the law favors settlements of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements or stipulations of settlement which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals.

2. The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having been found to be reasonable and voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing. 3. Glendale violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154A (21). RECOMMENDATION

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint issued against Hasco be dismissed. It is further recommended that commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter that the Class L-39 license of Glendale shall be placed on a period of disciplinary probation for one year.

Done this day, April 27, 2000

______________________________________ Mark A. Silver Administrative Law Judge

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

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater 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