Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

06F-2492-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-03-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 15, 2007 APPEARANCES: Attorney Denise Troy represented Complainant; Attorneys Michael Schern and Janis Garcia represented Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden ________________________________________________________________ This matter was convened as scheduled, after which the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving their differences. FINDINGS OF FACT The Hearing was convened as scheduled at 9:00 a.m. March 15, 2007. After discussion of preliminary issues with respect to the relationship between the issues raised in the instant Complaint (No. 06F-2492) and the issues previously determined in Docket No. 05F-1570- ROC, which involved the same parties, the parties engaged in settlement discussions resulting in the instant matter being resolved. The settlement agreement was read into the record and a copy of the settlement agreement was accepted as part of the record in this matter. The obligations of the parties under the

settlement agreement, if accepted by the Director of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”), are binding on one other. The basic terms of the settlement agreement are as follows: (a) Complainant agrees to pay Respondent $500.00 within 10 days; (b) Respondent agrees to dismiss civil action CV05-0318 (Plumbing Authority v. LGC Corp and Jeffrey Labriola); (c) Complainant agrees to withdraw and file a Notice of Compliance in Docket No. 05F-1570-ROC and to stipulate to the reinstatement of Respondent’s contracting license that was suspended in conjunction with that matter; (d) Complainant agrees to withdraw Complaint No. 06F- 2492 in the instant matter; and (e) Complainant and Respondent each agree to bear their respective costs and expenses, and to waive any other claims that each may have. Respondent acknowledges that, following ROC policy, the resolution of this matter shall be identified on the ROC website and its records as: “Closed Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.” Both parties acknowledge that they have entered into their settlement voluntarily. Both parties agree that all claims and defenses were to be merged into the settlement agreement and that in any future proceeding related to these claims and defenses the sole issue for determination will be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the settlement agreement. The terms of the foregoing settlement agreement appear reasonable under all of the circumstances and the settlement agreement is hereby determined the product of knowing and voluntary action by each party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 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 that should be recognized and given effect by the tribunal with jurisdiction over the issues and that possesses statutory enforcement authority.

The settlement reached by the parties during the Hearing of this matter and that has been declared on the record at Hearing is found to be reasonable and voluntarily entered. ORDER IT IS ORDERED vacating this matter from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings and remanding it to the Director of the Registrar of Contractors for appropriate disposition.

Done this day, March 15, 2007.

_________________________________ Thomas Shedden Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ day of _________, 2007 to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, Acting Director Registrar of Contractors Legal Department 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By _______________________________ -----------------------

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