Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc.

Background

Gerrie Dekker brought an unfair-business-practices suit against Vivint Solar, Inc. and other defendants. Vivint installs solar panels and sells the energy produced under long-term power-purchase agreements. Dekker alleged that Vivint’s contracts included unlawful liquidated-damages provisions—contract terms requiring customers to pay specified amounts if they ended the agreements.

The order addressed Vivint’s motion for partial summary judgment concerning Dekker’s request for injunctive relief. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of important fact requires a trial. The court considered three arguments: mootness, the availability of an adequate legal remedy, and whether the requested injunction was public or private.

Mootness

Vivint argued that Dekker’s request to stop its allegedly unfair sales practices was moot because Vivint had stopped sales practices involving newly contacted consumers. Vivint had been acquired by Sunrun, and the opinion states that Vivint no longer had employees as of March 21, 2021. But Vivint also acknowledged that some prospective customers who had already begun the sales process could still sign Vivint agreements. It also maintained a homebuilder sales channel, under which some ongoing customer interactions could continue under Vivint agreements.

The court held that Vivint had not conclusively stopped its sales practices and had not identified how many potential customers remained in its sales pipeline. Because Vivint did not meet its burden of proving mootness, the court denied the motion on that ground.

Adequate Remedy at Law

Vivint argued that Dekker could not obtain an injunction because she had an adequate remedy through damages or another legal remedy. Vivint relied on an earlier ruling applying Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., which concerned the requirements for equitable restitution.

The court rejected Vivint’s argument. It explained that Sonner did not address injunctive relief and that restitution and injunctions are different forms of equitable relief. The court also stated that damages would not adequately address Dekker’s alleged continuing exposure to liquidated-damages provisions if she tried to end her contract. The court therefore denied Vivint’s motion for summary judgment on the argument that Dekker’s injunctive-relief claim failed as a matter of law because she had an adequate remedy at law.

Public or Private Injunctive Relief

The court then considered whether Dekker sought public injunctive relief under California law. Public injunctive relief primarily prevents unlawful conduct that threatens future harm to the general public. Private injunctive relief primarily resolves the parties’ dispute and remedies individual injuries, even if it may incidentally benefit others.

The court discussed California’s rule limiting contractual waivers of public injunctive relief and decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, including Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The court concluded that Vivint’s reduced sales activity changed the practical effect of the requested injunction. Because Vivint no longer conducted sales activities with people who had not already begun negotiations, a favorable injunction would benefit a group of similarly situated customers rather than the general public as a whole.

The court therefore determined that Dekker sought private, not public, injunctive relief and granted Vivint’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. The court stated that this ruling did not make the requested injunction moot, but it limited the number of consumers who could benefit from it.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion was that Vivint’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The court held that Dekker sought only private injunctive relief, that her request concerning Vivint’s unfair or unlawful sales practices was not moot, and that her remaining equitable-relief claims could proceed because she did not have an adequate remedy at law.