Belyea v. GreenSky, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that GreenSky’s business practices violated California consumer-protection statutes. Their amended complaint asserted claims under the California Credit Services Act of 1984, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.

In an earlier order dated January 2, 2025, the court granted GreenSky summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ performance-fee claims. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. The court found that the plaintiffs presented evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that GreenSky violated the Credit Services Act, but did not present evidence of injury resulting from performance fees. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown the injury required for their claims.

Motion for clarification

The plaintiffs asked the court to confirm that the earlier summary-judgment order did not interpret the Credit Services Act’s damages provision or decide the scope of damages available under that statute. They also asked the court to rule that, if they proved GreenSky violated the Act by collecting transaction fees, they could recover performance fees they paid to GreenSky, even if those fees did not independently establish liability.

GreenSky argued that the plaintiffs’ motion was actually an untimely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). GreenSky also argued that the Credit Services Act does not permit recovery of amounts not connected to an underlying violation.

Court’s ruling

The court rejected GreenSky’s timeliness argument. It treated the filing as a motion seeking clarification—not reconsideration—because the plaintiffs did not argue that the court had made an error in granting summary judgment. The plaintiffs instead sought guidance about an issue that arose after the summary-judgment ruling, and they filed the motion about two weeks after learning of GreenSky’s position concerning performance-fee discovery.

The court granted in part the plaintiffs’ request for clarification. It confirmed that the earlier summary-judgment order did not decide whether the plaintiffs could recover performance fees if they proved that GreenSky’s collection of transaction fees violated the Credit Services Act. The earlier ruling addressed whether the plaintiffs had evidence of injury from performance fees; it did not decide whether the statute’s damages provision would allow recovery of those fees.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ additional request for clarification by ruling on whether the Credit Services Act permits recovery of performance fees, including when the plaintiffs cannot show that the performance fees themselves caused injury. The court explained that this issue was not before it when it issued the earlier summary-judgment, class-certification, and expert-evidence orders, so deciding it would go beyond clarifying the earlier decision. The order disposed of Docket No. 305.