Standing Up for Florida Solar Consumers: A Major Win in the Fight Against Forced Federal Jurisdiction

The Joshua S. Horton Law Firm (Legal Rebels Law) is proud to report a significant procedural victory in the ongoing legal battle surrounding deceptive solar financing practices. In a closely watched ruling within the Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), the MDL court rejected an attempt by a major solar financing company—Dividend Finance, now a division of Fifth Third Bank—to remove a Florida state court case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The ruling ensures that our client’s claims, including a request for statewide injunctive relief, will be heard in Florida state court, where they rightly belong.

The Background: Consumer Protection at the Forefront

Our client, a Florida homeowner, filed suit against Dividend and its partner-installer, Affordable Solar Roof & Air, LLC, after enduring a solar installation marred by misrepresentations, defective workmanship, and improper financing. She never signed a finalized financing agreement yet was subjected to aggressive collection efforts—including a UCC-1 lien placed on her home and threats of credit reporting.

Seeking to halt these deceptive practices, she filed a verified motion for statewide injunctive relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. This request asked the court to temporarily enjoin Dividend from collecting or enforcing questionable loan agreements across the state, reporting disputed debts to credit agencies, or assigning such debts to third parties.

Importantly, the injunction did not seek class certification. Rather, it aimed to stop unlawful conduct that was harming not just our client, but other similarly situated Floridians. The defendants, however, seized on this language and attempted to convert the case into a “de facto” class action, arguing for removal to federal court under CAFA.

The MDL Court’s Ruling: CAFA Has Clear Boundaries

The MDL court rejected the defendants’ argument decisively. In its ruling, the court emphasized that a request for injunctive relief—even if it benefits others—does not transform an individual claim into a class action or a “mass action” under CAFA. The court found there was “no plausible basis” for federal jurisdiction, reaffirming that:

• No Class Allegations Were Made: The plaintiff filed no Rule 23 class allegations, nor did she join other plaintiffs or seek representative relief.
• The Injunction Was Narrowly Tailored: The relief sought was closely tied to the plaintiff’s individual claims for breach of contract and consumer protection violations under Florida law.
• Defendants Cannot Rewrite a Plaintiff’s Case: Courts must evaluate jurisdiction based on the complaint as filed—not based on how defendants wish to recharacterize it.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder: federal jurisdiction under CAFA cannot be invoked merely because a plaintiff seeks relief that may incidentally benefit others. The presence of statewide implications does not equate to class-wide claims.

What This Means for Florida Consumers

This decision represents a win for consumer rights and state sovereignty. It reinforces the principle that individual plaintiffs retain the right to pursue justice in the forum of their choice—particularly when asserting rights under state law.

Moreover, it illustrates what injunctive relief can look like in Florida when confronting aggressive and deceptive business practices. A statewide injunction, while rare, is entirely appropriate when there is evidence of systemic misconduct harming consumers across the state. Florida courts are empowered to issue such relief under Rule 1.610, provided the plaintiff demonstrates:

• A substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
• Irreparable harm absent the injunction;
• A balance of equities favoring the plaintiff; and
• A public interest in granting the relief.

Our client’s motion satisfied each of these elements, highlighting egregious practices that included unauthorized liens, misrepresentations regarding federal tax incentives, and non-disclosure of key financing terms—all of which violate Florida consumer protection statutes.

Final Thoughts

While the litigation continues, this jurisdictional ruling is a critical milestone. It sends a clear message: corporate defendants cannot manipulate federal statutes to strip consumers of their chosen forum. The court’s ruling preserves the integrity of Florida’s consumer protection framework and ensures that deceptive solar financing schemes will be scrutinized under Florida law, by Florida courts.

Legal Rebels Law remains committed to holding bad actors accountable and fighting for justice on behalf of solar victims and other Florida consumers.