Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2009A-29707343-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2010-08-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 2, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Chris Estes. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. During the scheduled limited rehearing, 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 provide and install, a Jandy AquaPure salt cell 14-blade for the pool, a Jandy AquaPure slat cell 7-blade for the spa, a Pentair TR-140C (Commercial Grade) Sand Filter, 700 pounds of pool grade sand for the new filter, remove pool filter from pool filter manifold, cap the gas line for the pool heater, replace spa heater and insure that it is working properly, plumb and install backwash valve for the new filter, and repair crack in deck by the entrance to the sunken bar area as more fully set forth in the parties’ written Settlement Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein as “A”. 4. The Complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint at issue and agreed to the closing of the instant citation. 5. The parties acknowledged that they understood the terms of their Settlement Agreement and that they had entered into the Settlement Agreement voluntarily and in good faith. 6. 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. 7. In light of having entered into the Settlement Agreement, Complainant and Respondent 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, August 2, 2010.

_________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ Day of _________, 2010 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