Can Florida Consumers Beat Fifth Third Bank in Court? What’s at Stake in the Dividend Solar Loan Lawsuits

Thousands of Florida homeowners may soon find out whether the courts will side with consumers or protect corporate lenders in one of the most sweeping legal battles over solar energy financing in the state. The controversy centers on Dividend Finance, now a division of Fifth Third Bank, and its role in allegedly deceptive solar financing schemes that have left consumers buried in debt—and in some cases, with non-functioning or nonexistent solar systems.

The outcome of these cases could provide immediate and sweeping relief across Florida—but only if the federal courts allow the cases to remain in state court where they began.

WHAT IF THE VICTIMS SUCCEED?

If successful, this could be a massive win for Florida consumers—blocking all ongoing collections, credit damage, and lien enforcement by Dividend across the state and potentially multiple states in a Domino effect.

Everyday Breakdown: What’s the Case About?

Multiple Florida plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging that Dividend Finance and affiliated solar installation companies misled them into taking out costly home improvement loans through pressure sales tactics and deceptive contract terms. These lawsuits seek statewide injunctive relief to halt Dividend’s debt collection practices, stop further damage to credit reports, and bar the company from operating in Florida unless compliant with state consumer protection laws.

If successful, this could be a massive win for Florida consumers—blocking all ongoing collections, credit damage, and lien enforcement by Dividend across the state.

Legal Arguments: What the Lawyers Are Fighting Over

1. Improper Removal to Federal Court (Motion to Remand)
Plaintiffs argue that Dividend’s removal was untimely and jurisdictionally improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Specifically:

• The original complaint was filed in September 2024, but Dividend did not file for removal until April 2025, well beyond the 30-day removal deadline.
• The addition of a Florida defendant and the request for injunctive relief did not create a new basis for federal jurisdiction—if anything, it defeated diversity.

2. No Federal Question Exists
Plaintiffs assert state-law claims under Florida statutes such as:

• FDUTPA (Fla. Stat. § 501.201)
• Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 559.55)
• Breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.

Federal jurisdiction cannot be created by a defendant’s hypothetical federal defense. This is settled law under Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. and Gunn v. Minton.

3. CAFA Argument Rejected
Dividend argues the lawsuit is essentially a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), because the requested injunctive relief would impact more than 100 borrowers. However:

• The case was not filed as a class action.
• The relief sought applies only to similarly situated individuals within the state, under specific Florida laws.
• Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have strictly construed CAFA’s applicability.

Legal Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses & Remand Probability

Strengths of Plaintiff’s Case for Remand:

• Clear Untimeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1): Removal was filed more than 200 days after initial service.
• No Federal Cause of Action: All claims are grounded in state law.
• Inclusion of Non-Diverse Defendant (ASRA): Destroys complete diversity and negates CAFA jurisdiction.
• Established Precedents Favor Remand: Eleventh Circuit courts consistently resolve doubts about federal jurisdiction in favor of remand.

Weaknesses/Challenges:

• Defendants argue injunctive relief has class-like implications, potentially triggering CAFA.
• The breadth of the requested relief (statewide enforcement block) might tempt federal courts to retain jurisdiction, especially given potential national implications.

Analytical Outlook:
Federal courts are increasingly cautious about overreaching removal jurisdiction, particularly when state interests and consumer protection statutes are at the heart of the dispute. The plaintiffs’ legal position is strong under existing Eleventh Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The MDL, while active, is slower moving and largely focused on broader national claims, many of which lack the specific injunctive focus or Florida consumer statute violations found here.

Probability of Remand:
High (70–80%)—based on timing issues, lack of federal question, and the procedural impropriety of the removal. The more localized and immediate the harm (i.e., credit reporting, UCC liens, and home encumbrances), the more likely courts will see state courts as the proper venue.

Why This Matters Now

Delays in the MDL are compounding financial harm for Florida consumers. Credit scores are dropping, debt collectors are calling, and liens are still being filed—all while the underlying legality of these loans is under serious legal challenge.

If the federal court remands these cases back to Florida state court, judges there can address urgent relief swiftly—possibly entering statewide injunctions to halt predatory collection practices and protect consumers’ rights immediately.

This is more than a legal technicality—it’s about whether justice can be served in time to make a real difference.¹

Stay tuned for updates as these pivotal motions are decided. If you or someone you know is facing similar issues, speak with a qualified Florida consumer protection attorney.

If you think you may be a victim, please call us toll free at 1 (833) SOLAR – 40 or email us at solar@joshuahortonlaw.com or team at solarpanelfraud.com.

You can also use the contact form below, and may want to proactively fill out this application for representation located below to start the intake process. Make sure to download, fillout everything needed, save, and email to us at the above email provided…

1. See Case:
   Myrenne Jean-Baptiste v. Dividend Solar
   Finance LLC and Affordable Solar Roof & Air LLC
   
   Master Case No. 24-md-03128-KMM-DTS in Minnesota MDL and
   SDFL Case No. 9:25-cv-01604-KMM-DTS in Florida Federal Court
   
   See also:
   Zamena Khan v. Dividend Finance, Inc., and
   Affordable Solar Roof & Air, LLC
   
   Florida Federal Court Case No. 9:25-cv-00804 (M.D. FL),
   resisting removal to the Minnesota MDL
   Master Case as Baptiste was conditionally transferred.
   
   ↩︎