ALJDEC

00F-Y0195-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-03-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|TOM LEMMON DRYWALL, |§| | |Complainant, |§|CASE NOs.: Y00-0179, | |-v- |§|Y00-0195 | |License No. 147006, Class KB-02 |§| | |of |§|DOCKET NOs.: 00F-Y0179-ROC, | |SOUTHWEST POLYSTEEL, LLC, (LLc), |§|00F-Y0195-ROC | |Respondent, |§| | |and |§| | |CHARLES J. GRANDA, |§|RECOMMENDED | |Complainant, |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |-v- |§| | |License No. 064569, Class C-10 of|§| | |TOM LEMMON DRYWALL, INC. (CORP), |§| | |Respondent |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: Tuesday, March 6th, 2001; 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Tom Lemmon Drywall, Inc., was represented by Mr. Tom Lemmon. Southwest Polysteel, LLC and Mr. Charles J, Granda were represented by Mr. Robert Roberson, attorney-at-law. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston.

These consolidated matters came on for administrative hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings, in Yuma, Arizona. Testimony and argument were heard and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Tom Lemmon Drywall, Inc., is, and during all times material hereto was, a contractor licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class C-10 License number 064569. Southwest Polysteel, LLC, is, and during all times material hereto was, a contractor licensed as doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class KB-02 License number 147006. Mr. Charles J. Granda is the qualifying party on that license. 2. These are consolidated cases. In case number Y00-0179 Tom Lemmon Drywall, Inc., filed against Southwest Polysteel, LLC, for recovery of amounts claimed to be owed for drywall work at two Yuma job sites: 1224 37th Dr., and 3692 12th Pl. Lemmon sought payment in the sum of $12,761.17. In case number Y00-0195, Qualifying Party of Southwest Polysteel, LLC, Mr. Charles J. Granda, complained of the workmanship of the drywall installed by Lemmon at the 3692 W. 12th. Pl. residence. At the time of the complaints, Granda owned 3692 W. 12th Pl. 3. At the call of the case Lemmon’s motion to dismiss the case against him was argued and denied. Lemmon had filed a written motion to dismiss Y00-0195 in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson, on February 27th, 2001. The motion was sent to Granda for response, but none had been made by the time of the hearing. Thus the motion and response thereto were heard on the record, and the motion denied. 4. New facts came to light early in the hearing. Most important were that Lemmon had been informed that Granda had filed for bankruptcy relief, and Granda had sold 3692 W. 12th Place. Lemmon felt that if Granda had taken bankruptcy his prospects of recovering anything in the administrative process were dim, and he felt he might be wasting his time even pursuing the matter, and requested advice from the administrative law judge on the subject. 5. The administrative law judge informed Lemmon that he could not give him advice, but if he was in fact choosing to abandon his claim against the opposing party due to the possible bankruptcy, the parties might wish to discuss the matter and the matter of the opposing party’s claim off the record, to see if there would be any hope of resolving both cases by some sort of settlement. 6. A recess was called and without the presence of the administrative law judge, the parties discussed their cases. 7. Back on the record the parties stated their mutual desire in the form of an oral motion by each to dismiss their respective claim against the other. The administrative law judge informed the parties that he would, based on their mutual motions, adjourn the hearing and issue a recommended decision to the registrar dismissing both cases. The hearing was adjourned. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1156 and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. A general policy of law favors and encourages parties to achieve settlements of their outstanding differences. In these cases the parties voluntarily agreed to the dismissal of their respective claim against the other, and that agreement was knowingly made in the form of a motion on the record. Thus as a matter of law the mutual motions to dismiss ought to be granted. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Citation and Complaint in consolidated cases numbered Y00-0179 and Y00-0195, each be dismissed. Done this day, March 15th, 2001.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of March, 2001, to:

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

By _______________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488