ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-05527-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Donna Burner
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Nathan John Moreno
DBA: 1 Stop Stucco Repair,
License No. ROC 319427,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-05527-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 23, 2025
APPEARANCES: Donna Burner (Complainant) appeared on behalf of herself. No one appeared on behalf of Nathan John Moreno DBA: 1 Stop Stucco Repair (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 16, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors, (Registrar), issued
a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on October 23, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint.
Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have
violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3)(specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158; Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
4. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
5. On or about July 1, 2024, Respondent agreed to repair a window in Complainant’s home for the amount of $1,100.00. Complainant paid Respondent $1,100 pursuant to the agreement.
6. Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written construction contract.
7. On July 1, 2024, Respondent started work.
8. July 22, 2024, Respondent stopped work.
9. On or about June 4, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint from Complainant, alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
10. On or about July 16, 2025, one of the Registrar investigators, David
Fagerburg (Investigator Faberburg), conducted a jobsite inspection.
11. On August 1, 2025, the Registrar issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided, in relevant part, as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Monday August 18, 2025.
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside
the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive,
expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in
any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the
suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been
reactivated.
Investigator Note:
1: Based on the statement submitted by the complainant related to a written contract not being provided, I am able to verify the amount paid to the respondent as being $1,100.00 and all of the 9 minimum elements of a contract are missing violating ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract.
Complaint Narrative: A written contract wasn’t given.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: Repaired opening of window that was removed by me. Stuccoed over window opening – doesn’t match house.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the front of the home the complainant showed me where a window was removed by the complainant and the respondent patched the window opening with stucco. The stucco texture applied is not consistent or uniform with the surrounding stucco texture and does not match the home. See P (3) thru P (8). The respondent shall correct the stucco texture to be consistent and uniform with the surrounding stucco textured finish by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 2: Removed Vegas & stuccoed opening – doesn’t match house.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where Vegas were removed above the front entry of the home. The stucco texture applied is not consistent or uniform with the surrounding stucco texture and does not match the home. See P (9) thru P (12). The respondent shall correct the stucco texture to be consistent and uniform with the surrounding stucco textured finish by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Additional Requirements: The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised contract to this investigator that includes all 9 minimum elements of a contract over $1,000.00 per ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract.
12. Respondent did not correct the items listed in the Written Directive.
13. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation issued in this matter.
14. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
15. At hearing, Complainant testified on her own behalf. Investigator Fagerburg testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
16. Complainant explained that Respondent applied stucco to her home that did not match the existing texture.
17. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on November 12, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on May 2, 2018, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there are two open complaints against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record further shows that Respondent has no history of discipline with the Registrar.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative
record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section
41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
3. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to perform the window repair in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
4. The undisputed evidence shows that Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract, which is a Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Written Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend License No. 319427 issued to Nathan John Moreno
DBA: 1 Stop Stucco Repair, for five days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date.
No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
If is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide to the Registrar copies of its form contract that has been revised to comply with all of the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A).
If Respondent fails to provide proof that it has so revised its form contracts, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for five days.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, November 12, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Donna Burner
[email redacted]
Nathan John Moreno
DBA: 1 Stop Stucco Repair
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff