Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2012A-4488-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-04-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 3, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: Parker White (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. S W Sun Control Products Inc (hereinafter SW Sun Control”) appeared through its president, Ian Meuchke. 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, SW Sun Control agreed as follows: (1) SW Sun Control will contact Complainant’s HOA and attempt to negotiate an approval from Complainant’s HOA for the installation of Complainant’s new awning. (2) In the event that the parties are unable to gain HOA approval for the installation of Complainant’s new awning, SW Sun Control will attempt to sell the new awning to another customer with all proceeds of the sell of the new awning going to Complainant.

4. 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. 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).[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 4, 2013.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Copy mailed/e-mailed/faxed April 8, 2013 to:

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

Parker White 11508 N Adobe Village Pl Marana AZ 85658-4734

S W Sun Control Products Inc 6429 N Oracle Rd Tucson AZ 85704-5675

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