Vacate

04F-M0824-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2004-06-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 8, 2004 APPEARANCES: Dream Catcher’s Day Spa, L.L.C. (“Complainant”) was represented by Guy Bluff, Esq. Carwin Slade, Managing Member of Slade Construction, L.L.C. (“Respondent”), appeared on behalf of Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Michael L. Barth ________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant and Respondent manifested movement in the direction of a resolution of the issues that had resulted in the Complainant having filed its Complaint. Complainant and Respondent were, therefore, afforded the opportunity to craft a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were read into the record and a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. For purposes of determining this matter, the obligations of the parties to the Settlement Agreement, if approved by the Director of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, are binding on each other. 2. Complainant and Respondent have agreed that all rights and defenses relating to this matter are merged into the Settlement Agreement and that should hereafter any petitions for rehearing be filed and granted, or new complaints filed related hereto, the sole issue for determination shall be whether they have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the Settlement Agreement executed by them at the hearing. 3. The parties to the Settlement Agreement acknowledge that they have read and understand the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and entered into the Settlement Agreement voluntarily and in good faith. 4. This tribunal finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are reasonable under the circumstances and that the Settlement Agreement was the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party thereto. 5. In light of having entered into the Settlement Agreement, Complainant and Respondent agreed to vacate the hearing in this matter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The law favors the settlement of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements and stipulations of settlement which should be recognized and given effect by the tribunal having jurisdiction over the issues and statutory enforcement authority. 2. Termination of the instant hearing is mandated by the parties having entered into the Settlement Agreement, as well as by having agreed to vacate the hearing. A.A.C. R2-19-111(1) and (4). Order Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-111(1) and (4), it is ordered vacating the hearing in this matter and remanding this matter to the Director of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors for further disposition.

Done this day, June 22, 2004.

_________________________________ Michael L. Barth Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ day of _________, 2004 to:

Israel G. Torres, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Jennifer Brown 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Slade Construction 657 S. Blossom Mesa, AZ 85206

Guy W. Bluff, Esq. 844 N. 4th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003

By _______________________________

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

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