Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2012A-76-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-06-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 13, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Jacqueline Martinez. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

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 written Settlement Agreement, Respondent agreed contact Complainant’s insurance company and request the insurance company to pay for having an industrial hygienist perform testing on Complainant’s residence to determine the cause of the odor in the residence. Respondent further agreed that if the insurance company would not pay for the testing that Respondent would pay the industrial hygienist to perform the agreed upon testing and that if the industrial hygienist determines that the odor is the result of any work performed by Respondent then Respondent agreed to properly correct the odor problem. Complainant agreed that if the cause of the odor was not determined to be caused by any work performed by Respondent that she would pursue the matter with her insurance company. Complainant further agreed to withdraw the complaint at issue and agreed to the closing of the instant citation. 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, 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. See 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 Registrar for further disposition. Done this day, June 15, 2012.

_________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ Day of _________, 2012 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