2the denial of the continuance was not arbitrary or capricious, the determinationssupporting the revocation were not erroneous, and the penalties were not an abuse of discretion, we affirm.
In July 2009, respondent Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) issued twoorders concerning relators LeMaster Restoration, Inc. (LRI), and its principal, VerdeanLeMaster (LeMaster).
The first order concerned relators’
misconduct prior toDecember 1, 2007 (pre-December 2007 violations); it set a prehearing conference forSeptember 10, 2009. The second order concerned relators
’ misconduct afte
r December 1,2007 (post-December 2007 violations)
; it revoked relators’ license, imposed a $20,000
civil penalty, and ordered relators not to act or hold themselves out as licensedresidential-building contractors.
On August 26, 2009, relators’ attorney
requested a hearing on the order imposingdiscipline for post-December 2007 violations. The hearing on those violations was alsoscheduled for September 10, 2009. At that hearing, the administrative-law judge (ALJ)consolidated the two actions and scheduled a hearing for January 10, 2010.
DLI issued two orders because of a December 2007 change in the relevant law. Minn.Stat. §§ 326.93-.992 (2006) concerned violations committed prior to November 30, 2007.It provided that DLI had to commence an administrative action before the commissionercould impose any discipline on residential-building contractors, even if the discipline wasnot challenged, and permitted judicial review of disciplinary acts by parties who did notappear at the hearing. Minn. Stat. § 326B.082 (Supp. 2007) concerned violationscommitted after December 1, 2007. It provided that the commissioner could imposediscipline prior to a hearing and gave disciplined parties 30 days to request a hearing,after which the unchallenged discipline became final with no right to judicial review.