Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2012A-3471-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-04-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 10, 2013, at 8:00 a.m. . APPEARANCES: Julie Cissne (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared through her attorney, Jonathon Denny Esq. The Law Offices of JD Denny, PLLC. Big Kahuna Construction Corp (hereinafter “Big Kahuna”) appeared through its Qualifying Party, Scott BJ Klarkowski. 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, Big Kahuna agreed to not pursue any claims for money damages or monies under the parties’ construction agreement. Big Kahuna further agreed to honor any and all warranties on labor and construction that is not altered or modified by any other contractor or Complainant. 4. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Complainant agreed to release Big Kahuna of any and all responsibility to may any further repairs or alternations to her home. Complainant agreed to drop any and all claims against Big Kahuna in the Justice Courts of Maricopa County and with the Registrar of Contractors. 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 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 10, 2013.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Copy mailed/e-mailed/faxed April 10, 2013 to:

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

Julie Cissne 19322 W Fox Rd Buckeye AZ 85326-4203 [email redacted]

Big Kahuna Construction Corp. Po Box 5335 Sun City West AZ 85376-5335 [email redacted]

Johnathan Denny The Law Offices of JD Denny, PLLC 2221 W. Baseline Rd., Suite 101 Tempe, AZ 85283 [email redacted]

By: Cruz Serrano

----------------------- [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