Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

07F-2615-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-01-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 16, 2008 APPEARANCES: Complainants were represented by their attorney, James Pak and Respondent was represented by its attorney, Scott Holcomb. In addition, JR Edmunds Homes, Inc. (“JR”) appeared at the hearing and was represented by its attorney, Hank Pearson. 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 commencement of 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. Respondent will pay the sum of $50,000.00 to Complainants on or before January 25, 2008. b. JR will pay the sum of $90,000.00 to Complainants on or before January 25, 2008. c. Complainants agree to not only withdraw the instant Complainant filed against Respondent, named herein, but also to execute a full and final release for any claims that they may have against Respondent. d. Complainants agree not to publicize this settlement or engage in any disparagement of Respondent. e. There is an appeal pending in Superior Court on Complainant’s Registrar of Contractors’ Complaint filed against JR. In this regard, on or before February 1, 2008, Complainants will file a document withdrawing their answer on said appeal in case no. LC2007-00756-001DT. Although Complainants agree not to pursue their Registrar of Contractors’ claim against JR, they will not stipulate to a dismissal of that matter.

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, named in the caption above, have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement.

4. The terms of the forgoing settlement were determined to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party.

5. Respondent seeks a dismissal of this matter or at least that same not be reflected on its licensing screen on the internet, citing the language on the Registrar’s website which states, in pertinent part, under the heading “ Complaint Information”, “Complainants that were…settled without a corrective work order…are not included.” There was no Corrective Work Order issued in the instant matter.

6. Based on the settlement agreement, the hearing was vacated. 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 voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing.

ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings and remanded to the referring Agency for appropriate disposition. Done this day, January 23, 2008.

_________________________________ Mark A. Silver Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ day of _________, 2008 to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, Director Registrar of Contractors 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

By _______________________________

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

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