Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2012A-153-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-04-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: .April 19, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Joe Bodek (hereinafter “Mr. Bodek”) appeared on his own behalf. Roberto Pena Galaz dba Robert Drywall (hereinafter “Robert Drywall”) appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Order Quashing Citation and Complaint provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Note: If this matter proceeds to an administrative hearing, Barbara Bodek may not represent the interests of Lucille Consiglio. While Joe Bodek may represent his interests, personally, he cannot represent the interests of Lucille Consiglio.

2. 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. 3. A copy of the parties’ written settlement agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Robert Drywall agreed as follows: (1) Robert Drywall agreed that it would, at Robert Drywall’s sole expense, cause a licensed contractor to fully comply with the terms of the Corrective Work Order.

(2) Robert Drywall agreed that, at Robert Drywall’s sole expense, a licensed contractor would start the corrective work on or before April 30, 2013 and complete the corrective work by May 4, 2013.

(3) Robert Drywall agreed, at Robert Drywall’s sole expense, to cause a licensed contractor of Robert Drywall’s choice to install an agreed upon tile backsplash behind Complainant’s sink. .

5. Complainant agreed to allow the selected licensed contractor access to the residence at issue to perform the corrective action set forth in the Corrective Work Order and the installation of the agreed upon tile backsplash. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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).[1] 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, April 19, 2013.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Copy mailed/e-mailed/faxed April 19, 2013 to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors c/o Legal Department 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Robert Pena Galaz Robert Drywall 5950 S Del Moral Blvd Tucson AZ 85706-4348

Joe & Barbara L.Bodek Power of Attorney for Lucille Consiglio 6152 E Ship Rock Dr Tucson AZ 85756-9753

By TMendez

----------------------- [1] A.A.C. R2-19-119 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An administrative law judge shall vacate a calendared hearing and return the matter to the agency for further action, if:

1. The parties agree to vacate the hearing;

4. Facts demonstrate to the administrative law judge that it is appropriate to vacate the hearing for the purpose of informal disposition, or if the action will further administrative convenience, expedition and economy and does not conflict with law or cause undue prejudice to any party.

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

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