Benjamin Martinez v. Sunnova Energy Corporation
5:23-cv-02233
C.D. Cal.May 3, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Benjamin Martinez, a 78-year-old monolingual Spanish speaker with limited education and technological literacy, alleges he was misled into a 25-year, $48,272.37 solar panel financing contract.
- Sales representatives from Greenspire LLC, allegedly acting as Sunnova Energy Corporation's agents, approached Plaintiff at home, promised free solar panels, and induced him to provide personal information.
- Plaintiff claims he never knowingly signed or received the contract, which was in English and listed his name incorrectly; he later discovered he owed large sums due to this contract.
- Plaintiff paid over $1,800 after persistent debt collection calls before learning of the contract's existence and attempted to rescind but was ignored.
- Plaintiff brings eight claims, including fraudulent concealment, negligence, statutory violations (CLRA, Elder Abuse Act, Rosenthal Act, HSSA, UCL, and California Business and Professions Code).
- Defendant Sunnova moved to dismiss the complaint; the court considered the motion without oral argument and issued a mixed ruling, allowing several claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency liability for Greenspire's conduct | Greenspire acted as Sunnova's agent with control | No sufficient facts show Greenspire was Sunnova's agent | Sufficient facts pleaded; agency theory survives |
| Fraudulent concealment claim sufficiency | Concealment and intent shown via agent's actions | No agency, no intent, no reliance alleged | Claim sufficiently alleged |
| Negligence (duty and breach via agent's conduct) | Duty arises via agency; breach by Greenspire | Lack of agency, thus no actionable negligence | Claim sufficiently alleged |
| Statutory and consumer protection claims (CLRA, UCL, etc.) | Violations by agent or Sunnova directly harmed Plaintiff | Standing and liability can't be based on agency/theory, insufficient violations | Claims adequately alleged; direct liability only |
| HSSA, B&P Code 7150/7161 compliance and pleading | Statutory violations due to contract’s deficiencies | No agency, conclusory allegations for certain statutes | Section 7159 claim stands; 7161 claim requires more details |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (standards for pleading plausibility on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory, 24 Cal. 3d 799 (Cal. 1979) (duty of care may arise from statute, contract, or relationship)
- Modisette v. Apple Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 136 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (elements of negligence in California)
- Boschma v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc., 198 Cal. App. 4th 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of fraudulent concealment)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) (CLRA and UCL claims cannot rely on vicarious liability)