1. FACTS: The Factual Problem Of The Case 0 Who did what to whom? o What is the problem between the parties? 0 What remedies are the parties seeking? 2. PROCEDURE: The Legal System Through which the Controversy is Being Resolved 0 Is this an appeal? 0 Who won or lost in the lower court rulings? 3. LEGAL ISSUE: THE LEGAL QUESTION TO BE RESOLVED: o What is/are the important question[s) that the parties wish to be answered from the controversy? 4. HOLDING: THE ANSWER TO THE LEGAL QUESTION: 0 It literally answers the issue(s) raised in #3. o What is the decision or the ruling of the case at this appellate court level? 5. RATIONALE: THE LEGAL REASONING FOR HOLDING OF THE CASE: 0 What did the appellate court decide? 0 What reasons did the court give for its decision? W Enterprises v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1 139 P.3d 1286 (2006) Case Background m a licensed contractor, built a garage for the Fords. They were unhappy with his work and filed complaints with the Registrar of Contractors GBOC). The R 0C sent an inspector, Price, who issued citations and complaints against m An administrative law judge (ALD held a hearing in the Oice of Administrative Hearings (OATH. He ruled that Wmade several construction mistakes. The ROC adopted that decision and ruled thatm license would be revoked unless he corrected the problems. Wwas also fined $200. m5 did repair work and notified ROC. The Fords were supposed to accept or reject the work within 10 days, but waited much longer than that to complain about the repair work. The ROC sent Price again to look, and he again listed problems with the work. W complained to ROC that the process was not proper, because Price used to work for W and did not like him. Price did another inspection, found fault, and the R 0C would not hold another hearing and revoked W contractor license. W sued ROC and the Fords, contending the administrative process was defective. The trial court held it did not have Jiurisdiction to review the matter. 391351;; appealed. Case Decision Timmer, Judge [Arizona law] requires the ROC to conduct a hearing before revoking or suspending a license or imposing any other penalty for a specied number of acts or omissions committed by a contractor. Such hearings were held before issuance of the [order to repair the garage properly. The law does not require] that a hearing be held before an ROC decision can be considered a nal administrative decision. Moreover, we discern no reason for requiring a hearing before an ROC decision can be subject to judicial review. If, as in this case, the ROC reises a request for a hearing, it could ensure that a decision that otherwise ts the denition set forth in [the statute governing the ROC] would avoid review if we adopt the Em argument. We decline to interpret the law in such an unjust manner. The Fords next argue that the disciplinary notice is not a nal administrative decision, because the ROC did not place it in the form of an \"order\