ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-63020-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2010-07-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Pending before the Office of Administrative Hearings is Respondent’s motion to dismiss the above-entitled matter due to the fact that the financial dispute between the parties has been adjudicated in Case No. T10- 0012, which is a final administrative action. Complainant has filed a response in opposition to the motion. A prehearing conference was conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings on July 7, 2010, to hear oral arguments in support and in opposition to the pending motion. Complainant was represented by its corporate officers, Deborah and Nollan Blackwell. Respondent did not appear. In Case No. T10-0012, Respondent filed a Complaint with the Registrar alleging workmanship and payment issues with Complainant on a project located at 7828 N. Ancient Indian Drive, Tucson, Arizona. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. T10-0012 charging Complainant with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). A copy of the Citation and Complaint was sent to Complainant at its address of record with the Registrar. Complainant failed to timely answer the Citation and Complaint in Case No. T10-0012. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1155(B), Complainant’s failure to answer the Citation and Complaint “shall be deemed an admission by the licensee of the licensee’s commission of the act or acts charged in the complaint and the registrar may then suspend or revoke the licensee’s license.” On February 23, 2010, the Registrar issued a default Decision and Order in Case No. T10-0012. The Registrar concluded that Complainant violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 as charged in the Citation and Complaint. In that matter, the Registrar issued the following Order: ORDER IT IS ORDERED suspending [Plus Granite’s] Class K-05 license on the effective date of this Order (40 days after the mailing date, shown below), until the Registrar receives proof that [Plus Granite] has appropriately rectified the issues involved and detailed in the Complaint, then [Plus Granite’s] license shall not be suspended, and this Citation and Complaint shall be closed [sic].

Complainant’s License No. 215678 is suspended pending Complainant’s compliance with the Registrar’s Decision and Order in Case No. T10-0012. In Complainant’s Complaint in the above-entitled matter, Complainant alleges nonpayment by Respondent to Complainant for work performed on the project located at 7828 N. Ancient Indian Drive, Tucson, Arizona. The issues in the above-entitled matter are determined to be identical to the issues adjudicated in Case No. T10-0012. “‛Under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action.’”[1] The doctrine of collateral estoppel[2] bars Complainant from relitigating the issues previously litigated in Case No. T10-0012. In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010-63020 be dismissed on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of that certification. Done this day, August 3, 2010.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Hawkins v. State of Arizona, Department of Economic Security, 183 Ariz. 100, 900 P.2d 1236, 1239 (App. 1995) (quoting Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners, 155 Ariz. 169, 174, 745 P.2d 617, 622 (App.1987)). [2] The Arizona Court of Appeals has held:

The doctrine of “collateral estoppel” is a doctrine of issue preclusion. It bars a party from relitigating an issue identical to one he has previously litigated to a determination on the merits in another action. The elements necessary to invoke collateral estoppel are: the issue is actually litigated in the previous proceeding, there is a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, resolution of such issue is essential to the decision, there is a valid and final decision on the merits, and there is a common identity of the parties.

Gilbert, 155 Ariz. at 169, 745 P.2d at 622 (quoted in Hawkins, 183 Ariz. At 103, 900 P.2d at 1239).

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

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