Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

08F-L0191-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-10-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 15, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared his attorney, Susanne B. Luse. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Jay B. Bidwell. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During the scheduled hearing the parties manifested movement in the direction of a resolution of the matter at issue. Therefore, the parties were afforded the opportunity to craft a settlement agreement the essential terms of which were stated for the record. 2. A copy of the parties’ written settlement agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent agreed to admit that the Respondent is in violation of the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (17) (Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license of the licensee) and agreed to participate in the mediation or arbitration of the parties’ concurrent civil suit and agreed to pay the fees for the mediator or arbitrator. The Complainant agreed to dismiss the complaint at issue except for the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154 (A) (17) (Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the License of the Licensee) and agreed to take no position regarding any disciplinary action or sanction that may be imposed upon the Licensee’s License as a result of the undisputed violation of the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(17) (Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the Licensee’s License). 4. The parties acknowledged that they understood the terms of their Settlement Agreement and they had entered into the Settlement Agreement voluntarily and in good faith. 5. 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. 6. In light of having entered into the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to vacate the hearing in this matter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A general policy of 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 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, October 16, 2009.

_________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ Day of _________, 2009 to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors c/o Legal Department 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

By _______________________________

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

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