ALJDEC

01F-2671-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-12-18

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The above matter came on for hearing on December 18, 2001. The Complainants appeared in their own behalf. The Respondent failed to appear through any authorized individual employee or through any proper legal representative, although the father of Respondent’s qualifying party, Joe Jobe, was present and participated in settlement negotiations and discussions. Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Following a very lengthy recess taken shortly after the formal opening of the scheduled hearing, the parties confirmed to the Administrative Law Judge that they had concluded a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were read onto the record. Respondent’s qualifying party, Justin Jobe, subsequently had joined these proceedings by contacting this tribunal by telephone, during which he expressly confirmed and ratified the settlement provisions, including the seeking and obtaining of a mutual modification of one element of the parties’ agreement.

2. Pursuant to the provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement, Respondent agreed to pay or tender, and Complainants agreed to accept, a specified total monetary amount, in two separate installments with specific sums payable no later than stated deadline dates, in full satisfaction of the complaint presently pending before the Registrar of Contractors. Complainants also agreed, conditioned upon their timely receipt of the stipulated payments, to withdraw their complaint and to consent to the entry of an Order provisionally closing the within Citation without prejudice to the reopening of same or the filing of a new complaint in the event of any breach by Respondent of the payment terms of the agreement. Additionally, both parties agreed to mutually release any and all claims against each other arising out of their prior construction contract dealings.

3. Respondent further agreed, solely for the purposes of proper disposition of the instant administrative hearing, to the entry of a finding of at least one violation of the State’s contracting laws; provided however, that no active license suspension would be imposed if the payment terms of the settlement agreement were timely and fully complied with on the part of Respondent. Stated alternatively, the provisional license suspension would be imposed only if Respondent failed to pay or tender the specified monetary amounts by their respective deadline dates.

4. The administrative disciplinary proceedings hereunder are effectively cut short by the entry into the above-described settlement agreement, providing for no lingering or additional disciplinary penalties, which settlement is to be presented to the Registrar of Contractors for approval and adoption. Consequently, Respondent must be and hereby is advised that any future breach of the payment terms of the settlement agreement will not only constitute grounds for the filing of a new complaint but also shall warrant treatment as a circumstance in aggravation.

5. All rights and defenses of the respective parties are deemed to have been merged into the settlement agreement, and if any timely petition for rehearing of this matter is to be filed and granted, or if any new complaint is filed in the future, the sole issue for determination, at Complainants’ election, shall be whether Respondent has performed its payment obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement

6. The terms of the foregoing settlement agreement appeared to be fair and 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

The entire record in this matter, including the applicable contents of the settlement agreement concluded by the parties at the scheduled hearing, supports a determination that Respondent has violated, at least in one respect, a charged provision of A.R.S. §32-1154(A).

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 and the provisional closing of the charges contained in the Citation and Complaint.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended, commencing on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, that the Class B license of Respondent shall be actively suspended unless or until the Registrar receives proof that Respondent has complied

with its payment obligations arising under the terms of the settlement agreement, as read upon the record at the hearing of this matter.

It is further recommended that if Respondent timely pays or tenders the agreed monetary amounts to Complainants, all of which payments being due, as envisioned by the settlement terms, before this Order’s effective date, then no license suspension shall be imposed, but instead, the entire Citation and Complaint in Case Number 01-2671 shall be closed.

Dated: December 19, 2001. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Robert I. Worth Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted on _____________________

by: _____________________________ , to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 800 West Washington Street (6th Floor) Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826