ORDER
2024A-12476-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Gold Standard Plumbing LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
DREAM BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION
LLC,
License No. ROC 339012,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-12476-NPC-ROC
ORDER REGARDING SUBPOENAS
The Arizona Registrar of Contractors noticed this matter for hearing to convene on January 31, 2025.
On January 2, 2025, Respondent requested the issuance of a subpoena for documents.
On January 3, 2025, Respondent requested a continuance, and noted for the record that Complainant had advised it objected to a continuance in the matter.
On January 9, 2025, the Tribunal denied the subpoena request as overly broad.
On Friday, January 10, 2025, at 5:15 p.m., Respondent filed a new request for the issuance of a subpoena for documents; the subpoena had been narrowed somewhat.
On January 14, 2025, the Tribunal granted the continuance by requesting a new hearing date from case management.
On January 15, 2025, the Tribunal issued its ORDER for the continued hearing date of March 17, 2025.
Given the continuance request, the Tribunal did not address the January 10, 2025 subpoena request at that time.
On January 24, 2025, Complainant filed the parties’ joint request for mediation in the matter. The matter was referred to case management to assign to a mediator.
The Tribunal scheduled mediation for February 13, 2025.
Given that the matter had been scheduled for mediation, unexpectedly, on January 28, 2025, Respondent again requested the Tribunal issue a subpoena for documents by February 24, 2025; the subpoena had been further narrowed.
On January 28, 2025, the Tribunal issued Respondent’s subpoena, narrowing the time for provision of documents to February 10, 2025, which was a date prior the parties’ scheduled mediation.
On January 29, 2025, Complainant requested the issuance of a subpoena to Respondent for records, noting that the Respondent had already obtained a subpoena against Complainant for the similar records.
On January 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued Complainant’s subpoena.
On January 31, 2025, Respondent filed an objection to Complainant’s subpoena arguing that the breadth of Complainant’s subpoena was over and above Respondent’s January 28, 2025 subpoena.
On January 31, 2025 at 4:29 p.m., Respondent next filed an objection to Complainant’s January 29, 2025 subpoena arguing that Respondent’s January 31, 2025 objection had been filed timely but was not considered. In its motion, Respondent requested that its previously denied subpoena, which Respondent notes was broader, be issued “for purposes of parity and equity.”
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED denying the request to issue a previously-denied subpoena. The parties are scheduled for mutually-agreed mediation in their efforts to resolve the matter outside of an administrative hearing; each has requested the other’s business, and more, records related to the very same issues in the instant matter. The undersigned will be notified of the outcome of the mediation session.
ORDERED this day, February 5, 2025.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Roger C. Decker Esq.
Udall Shumway
1138 N. Alma School Rd., Suite 101
Mesa, AZ 85201
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Andrew J. Wenker, Esq.
LANG THAL KING & HANSON PC
6730 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 101
Scottsdale, Az. 85253
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff