Luis Acevedo v. Sunnova Energy Corporation
5:23-cv-02436
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 28, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Luis Acevedo, a homeowner in Riverside County, California, alleged he was fraudulently entered into a 25-year solar Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Sunnova Energy, through acts of Sunnova’s authorized sales contractors (Kuubix and its employee Shaheen).
- Acevedo claims a Kuubix salesperson falsely represented a solar installation as a free government program, collected his PII, and obtained his forged e-signature using fake information.
- Plaintiff did not receive or sign any contract at the time of installation; he only obtained a copy of the contract months later, by which time Sunnova was demanding monthly payments for the system.
- Sunnova refused to rescind the contract or recognize Plaintiff’s attempts to cancel, insisting on payment.
- Plaintiff asserted multiple claims including fraudulent concealment, negligence, CLRA, FCRA, Rosenthal Act, HSSA, and violations of several California business codes.
- Sunnova moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), contending chiefly that no agency or liability could attach for Kuubix's actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency—Sunnova's liability for Kuubix’s acts | Kuubix was Sunnova’s agent with authority and Sunnova ratified unlawful conduct | No sufficient allegations of agency, control, or ratification | Sufficiently alleged; motion denied |
| Fraudulent concealment and related claims | Sunnova (via agent) concealed key information and forged contract | No relationship; Plaintiff didn’t directly interact with Sunnova | Sufficiently alleged; motion denied |
| CLRA, Rosenthal, HSSA, FCRA, UCL violations | Suffered statutory injuries due to unlawful contracting and debt collection | Plaintiff lacks standing; did not allege direct harm or reliance | Sufficiently pleaded; motion denied |
| Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7161 claim | Sunnova violated section with misrepresentations/fraud in contracting | No private cause of action or right to civil enforcement | Motion granted, no leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (explains standard for facial plausibility of claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (sets standard for plausibility at motion to dismiss)
- Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474 (agency—right to control standard under CA law)
- Malloy v. Fong, 37 Cal. 2d 356 (criteria for existence of agency relationship)
- Reusche v. Cal. Pac. Title Ins. Co., 231 Cal. App. 2d 731 (ratification concepts under California law)
- Graham v. Bank of Am., N.A., 226 Cal. App. 4th 594 (elements of fraudulent concealment)