Bascetta V Vision Solar LLC - Complaint

Case 1:23-cv-02010 Document 1 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 101 PageID: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TOM BASCETTA, AR-RAHMAN
BUSKEY, SANDRA CUENCA, DEBORAH
DONAHUE, XIROYMA DISLA, BRIAN
FAHEY, SHAWN FROMENT, CARLYN Case No. 1:23-CV-2010
HASTREITER, LYNDSEY HENDERSON,
DENNIS LUPIEN, STEPHANIE LUPIEN, COMPLAINT
MATTHEW MCLELLAND, NICOLA
NORALUS, DARLENE PAGANO, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EVELYN PEREZ, JORGE PEREZ, KAREN
QUANTZ, GREG RORRIS, DANIELLE
STEVENS, JANICE SCHMIDT, JOE
SCHMIDT, and CHRIS UNDERWOOD,
individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VISION SOLAR, LLC,
Defendant.
Plaintiffs Tom Bascetta, Ar-Rahman Buskey, Sandra Cuenca, Xiroyma Disla, Deborah
Donahue, Brian Fahey, Shawn Froment, Carlyn Hastraiter, Lyndsey Henderson, Stephanie
Lupien, Dennis Lupien, Matthew McClelland, Nicola Noralus, Darlene Pagano, Evelyn Perez,
Jorge Perez, Karen Quantz, Gregg Rorris, Janice Schmidt, Joe Schmidt, Danielle Stevens, and
Chris Underwood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, assert the following
against Defendant Vision Solar LLC (“Vision Solar” or “Vision”), based upon personal
knowledge, information and belief, and the investigation of counsel.

INTRODUCTION
This action arises out of Defendant Vision Solar’s fraudulent, deceptive, and
unfair inducement of homeowners in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania to enter into agreements to purchase residential solar photovoltaic systems
(“Solar Panel Systems”).
Vision Solar deliberately targeted vulnerable populations—including low-income,
disabled, and elderly individuals—and induced them into the purchase or lease of Solar Panel
Systems by systematically misrepresenting the benefits of Solar Panel Systems, including
homeowners’ eligibility for tax credits, the performance of the Solar Panel Systems, and the
financial terms of the loans and leasing transactions.
Vision Solar’s tactics have been described by the Connecticut Attorney General
as “the worst [the office] has seen.” And Vision Solar’s complete failure to perform as promised,
a failure which was their intent all along, has left thousands of defrauded customers paying for
Solar Panel Systems that are either not working at all because they are not hooked up to the
power grid, or performing so far below the levels promised by Vision Solar, that these customers
are losing money on a net basis.
Hundreds of complaints have been filed with the attorneys general of the states in
which Vision Solar and its financing partners, including Sunlight Financial LLC (“Sunlight”),
KeyBank, N.A. (“KeyBank”) Dividend Finance (“Dividend”), IGS Solar LLC (“IGS Solar” or
“IGS”), Additional Financial LLC (“Additional Financial”), GoodLeap, LLC (“GoodLeap”), and
Technology Credit Union (“TechCU” and, collectively with Sunlight, TechCU, IGS Solar,
Additional Financial, Dividend, GoodLeap, and KeyBank, the “Financing Companies”), operate.
2
Multiple media outlets have run stories exposing Vision Solar’s practices, yet it
persists with its misconduct (and even recently obtained $20 million in financing) because its
tactics are profitable.
Vision Solar’s lies and deception regarding material and foundational aspects of
the sales and financing agreements for the Solar Panel Systems render each and every agreement
void ab initio. Plaintiffs and class members would never have entered into agreements with
Vision Solar absent Vision Solar’s lies, which is why Vision Solar and its partners engaged in
the activity in the first place. They are selling a shoddy product via fraudulent, deceptive, and
unfair means.
In recognition of the egregiousness of Vision Solar’s conduct, on March 15, 2023,
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (the “CT AG”) initiated a parens patriae
enforcement action against Vision Solar for predatory practices and deceptive sales tactics
violating the Connecticut Home Improvement Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act. The CT AG’s description echoes the experience of Plaintiffs and members of the Class
herein – that Vision Solar took advantage of low-income, elderly, and disabled homeowners,
pressuring them into unaffordable loans for solar panels that were never activated or were
installed without proper permits via unfair, high-pressure sales tactics, including instances of
altering the scope of work without consent, overstating tax benefits, and using unlicensed
contractors to install Solar Panel Systems.
As a result of the conduct described above, Plaintiffs and members of the Class
seek relief from Defendant Vision Solar in the form of restitution, disgorgement of profits,
recission of the sales and financing agreements, and damages.
3
PARTIES
I. PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS
A. PLAINTIFF BASCETTA
Plaintiff Thomas Bascetta (“Plaintiff Bascetta”) is a citizen and resident of the
State of Connecticut.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Bascetta into purchasing a Solar Panel System from
Vision Solar, financed by Financing Company Sunlight Financial, in February 2022.
Like other Plaintiffs and members of the Classes (as defined below), Vision Solar
induced Plaintiff Bascetta to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System by systematically
misrepresenting several material and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements,
including but not limited to, representing that:
a. Vision Solar would obtain all required permits prior to installation;
b. Plaintiff Bascetta would receive a $24,000 tax credit equal to 26% of the
cost of the Solar Panel System; and
c. the Solar Panel System would “pay for itself” by reducing the amount of
power used from Plaintiff Bascetta’s current power company.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Bascetta,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Bascetta
into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but not limited to:
a. Soliciting Plaintiff Bascetta at home, unannounced;
b. Staying longer than requested in Plaintiff Bascetta’s home;
c. Pressuring Plaintiff Bascetta to sign up for installation of the Solar Panel
System the same day as the in-home inspection;
4
d. Pressuring Plaintiff Bascetta not to consult an attorney before agreeing to
purchase and finance the Solar Panel System; and
e. Presenting the purchase and financing agreements on a small mobile
device on which Plaintiff Bascetta could not adequately read or evaluate
the documents.
Vision Solar installed a Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Bascetta’s home days after
Vision Solar’s unannounced sales visit despite the fact that Vision Solar knew it had not obtained
permits for the Solar Panel System to be connected to the power grid (i.e., “Permission to
Operate”). Despite this, Vision Solar turned on the system, which has used electricity and thus
increased Plaintiff Bascetta’s electricity bill.
More than 14 months later, Vision Solar still has not obtained the required permits
for the Solar Panel System to receive Permission to Operate. Yet, Financing Company Sunlight
Financial has required Plaintiff Bascetta to make payments for financing the purchase of Plaintiff
Bascetta’s Solar Panel System.
Plaintiff Bascetta has paid $190/month for electricity, an approximate $12/month
increase over the $178/month he was paying prior to installation of the Solar Panel System. This
is attributable to the fact that the Solar Panel System is turned on but not generating any energy.
Plaintiff Bascetta made payments each month in the amount of $89 for his Solar
Panel System despite the fact that his Solar Panel System is not functioning.
Additionally, Plaintiff Bascetta did not receive the 26% tax credit amounting to
$24,000 that Vision Solar promised him.
5
Vision Solar deflected Plaintiff Bascetta’s complaints using its Concierge and
Customer Retention departments. Vision Solar has promised Plaintiff Bascetta reimbursements
for the payments he has made, but no reimbursement has occurred.
Despite Financing Company Sunlight Financial’s knowledge of Vision Solar’s
conduct, Plaintiff Bascetta continues to be charged for the financing of his non-functioning Solar
Panel System and makes payments because he fears the legal and/or credit repercussions of
nonpayment.
As a result of Vision Solar’s misrepresentations and unfair business practices,
Plaintiff Bascetta and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
including without limitation, an increase in their monthly expenses, lost time and aggravation
related to making any attempt to get a response or solution from Vision Solar, and other
economic and non-economic harm.
Like the harm caused to other Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Vision Solar
harmed Plaintiff Bascetta by causing Bascetta to reasonably rely upon the veracity of Vision
Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel System, and Plaintiff
Bascetta would not have purchased a Solar Panel System from Vision Solar absent the material
and foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Bascetta.
B. PLAINTIFF BUSKEY
Plaintiff Ar-Rahman Buskey (“Plaintiff Buskey”) is a citizen and resident of the
State of New Jersey.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Buskey into assuming a lease agreement with
Financing Company IGS Solar for a Solar Panel System on August 9, 2022 prior to Plaintiff
Buskey moving in to his residence.
6
Like other Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Vision Solar induced Plaintiff
Buskey into assuming the lease agreement by systematically misrepresenting several material
and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including but not limited to:
a. That Plaintiff Buskey was required to assume the lease in order to
purchase the house;
b. That the Solar Panel System would be permitted and functioning by the
time Plaintiff Buskey moved in; and
c. That Vision Solar would make payments for Plaintiff Buskey until the
Solar Panel System was activated.
Plaintiff Buskey assumed the lease on August 9, 2022, but the Solar Panel System
did not receive the required permits or Permission to Operate until March 14, 2023. During the
period of over seven months between assumption of the lease and activation, Plaintiff Buskey
paid $430 each month for his electric bill and made additional payments pursuant to the lease he
assumed. Vision Solar has not reimbursed Plaintiff Buskey for these payments as promised.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Buskey,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Buskey
a. Telling Plaintiff Buskey he needed to agree to assume the lease of the
Solar Panel System that day or lose the opportunity; and
b. Telling Plaintiff Buskey it was necessary to assume the lease of the Solar
Panel System in order to purchase the house.
Vision Solar deflected and ignored Plaintiff Buskey’s complaints using its
Concierge and Customer Retention departments, including engaging in the following conduct:
7
a. Falsely telling Plaintiff Buskey he had provided incorrect information to
Vision Solar which prevented Vision Solar from obtaining permits or
Permission to Operate;
b. Promising Plaintiff Buskey that Vision Solar would pay his electricity bill
to prevent him from insisting on cancelling the contract; and
c. Threatening Plaintiff Buskey with lawsuits for breach of contract when
Plaintiff Buskey asked that the non-functioning Solar Panel System be
removed from his residence.
Plaintiff Buskey and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
including, without limitation, an increase in their monthly expenses, lost time and aggravation
related to making any attempt to get a response or solution from Vision Solar, and other
economic and non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Buskey by causing Plaintiff Buskey to reasonably rely upon the veracity of
Vision Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel System, and he
would not have purchased a Solar Panel System from Vision Solar absent the material and
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Buskey.
C. PLAINTIFF CUENCA
Plaintiff Sandra Cuenca (“Plaintiff Cuenca”) is a citizen and resident of the State
of Florida.
8
Plaintiff Cuenca was induced by Vision Solar’s salesperson into purchasing a
Solar Panel System and financing it through Financing Company Sunlight Financial during an at
home, unannounced solicitation by a Vision Solar salesperson on April 6, 2022.
Cuenca to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several
material and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including but not
limited to:
a. That Vision Solar would acquire the required permits and Permission to
Operate before installing the Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Cuenca’s
home;
b. That Plaintiff Cuenca would receive a tax credit equal to approximately
$10,000-$12,000;
c. That Plaintiff Cuenca’s electricity bill would be reduced from $340-$390
per month down to $160 per month; and
d. That Vision Solar would remove the Solar Panel System at no cost to
Plaintiff Cuenca for any reason, such as roof repair;
Vision Solar knew these representations were false when made. Vision Solar
never intended to obtain, and did not obtain, the proper permits or Permission to Operate before
installing the Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Cuenca’s home. Plaintiff Cuenca did not receive a
tax credit of approximately $10,000-$12,000. And Plaintiff Cuenca’s electric bill has not gone
down.
9
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Cuenca,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Cuenca
a. Soliciting Plaintiff Cuenca at home, unannounced;
b. Staying longer than requested in Plaintiff Cuenca’s home, remaining for
five-to-six hours and only leaving when Plaintiff Cuenca insisted that she
needed to pick up her kids from school;
c. Falsely claiming to call Vision Solar’s offices to get “approval”; and
d. Presenting the purchase and financing agreements on a “very small”
mobile device on which Plaintiff Cuenca could not adequately read or
evaluate the documents.
Vision Solar installed Plaintiff Cuenca’s Solar Panel System on April 12, 2022,
without obtaining permits or “Permission to Operate.” Financing Company Sunlight Financial
began requiring Plaintiff Cuenca to make payments immediately thereafter, despite the fact that
Plaintiff Cuenca’s Solar Panel System was not hooked up to the power grid because of a lack of
permitting and Permission to Operate.
Financing Company Sunlight Financial continued forcing Plaintiff Cuenca to
make payments for a non-functioning Solar Panel System for eleven (11) months, resulting in
Plaintiff Cuenca making hundreds of dollars of payments each month for a non-functioning Solar
Panel System.
Vision Solar deflected Plaintiff Cuenca’s complaints using their Concierge and
Customer Retention departments by, for example:
10
a. Falsely promising to reimburse Plaintiff Cuenca for the payments made
while the Solar Panel System was not functional;
b. Refusing to escalate Plaintiff Cuenca’s complaints to a manager or
supervisor; and
c. Falsely promising to call her back.
Plaintiff Cuenca never received reimbursements, and Vision Solar never obtained
the required permits or Permission to Operate for the Solar Panel System to be connected to the
power grid. Instead, after 11 months of making payments for a non-functioning Solar Panel
System, Plaintiff Cuenca, out of necessity, obtained the permits herself to prevent herself from
losing more money. The Solar Panel System does not perform as promised.
Vision Solar’s misrepresentations and unfair business practices have caused
Plaintiff Cuenca and other similarly situated homeowners to suffer actual damages, including,
without limitation, an increase in their monthly expenses, lost time and aggravation related to
making any attempt to get a response or solution from Vision Solar, and other economic and
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Cuenca by causing Plaintiff Cuenca to reasonably rely upon the veracity of
Vision Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel System, and
Plaintiff Cuenca would not have purchased a Solar Panel System from Vision Solar absent the
material and foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Cuenca.
D. PLAINTIFF DISLA
Plaintiff Xiroyma Disla (“Plaintiff Disla”) is a citizen and resident of the State of
Florida.
11
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Disla into purchasing a Solar Panel System from
Vision Solar and financing the purchase with Financing Company GoodLeap during an
unannounced at home solicitation in October 2021.
Disla to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several
limited to, representing that:
a. Plaintiff Disla would receive a large tax credit for installing the Solar
Panel System despite knowing it was unlikely that Plaintiff Disla would be
eligible for a tax credit for that amount;
b. Plaintiff Disla’s electric bill would go down dramatically despite knowing
the Solar Panel Systems were not capable of delivering that amount of
savings
c. The local electric company would pay Plaintiff Disla for contributing
more electricity to the grid than she was using despite knowing this was
false;
d. The Solar Panel System would produce enough power for Plaintiff Disla’s
home and hot tub to function solely using solar-generated power; and
e. Vision Solar would remove the Solar Panel System for free if Plaintiff
Disla ever had to make roof repairs.
Plaintiff Disla only discovered she was ineligible for the federal tax credit when
GoodLeap called her to offer another predatory financing arrangement to her: a home equity
loan.
12
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Disla,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Disla into
agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but not limited to:
a. Standing over Plaintiff Disla and waiting for her to sign on the sales
representative’s iPad rather than letting her review the documents;
b. Instructing Plaintiff Disla after she signed the documents that Vison Solar
needed to finalize the contract and would send her the contract at a later
date – which was over a year later, and only at Plaintiff Disla’s request;
and
c. Insisting the Solar Panel System would cover the energy usage of both her
home and hot tub after Plaintiff Disla explained that the hot tub was to
help calm her autistic son and that the solar panels were a way to save
money on electricity so they could better afford this type of therapy.
While Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System at the end of January 2022,
the solar panels have yet to be activated – a time span of 17 months, which far exceeds Vision
Solar’s estimated completion time of 90 days after signing.
During that time, Plaintiff Disla paid between $250 and $350 each month for her
electric bills and monthly solar panel payments of $171, which are due to increase to $240 in
August, even though she did not obtain the contracted benefit of functioning solar panels to date.
Vision Solar deflected Plaintiff Disla’s complaints using their Concierge and
Customer Service departments, including by:
a. Providing various excuses as to why the solar panels have yet to be
connected;
13
b. Falsely promising Plaintiff Disla reimbursement for her solar panel
payments but never paying the reimbursements (despite Plaintiff Disla
submitting paperwork and calling to get updates);
c. Failing to provide Plaintiff Disla with the signed contract for months
despite several requests from her; and
d. Denying Plaintiff Disla’s request for Vision Solar to remove the panels
and release her form her loan and contract, thereby thwarting her ability to
take any actions to mitigate their damages.
Vision Solar, however, informed Plaintiff Disla that one of the reasons (excuses)
that the panels were still not operational is because her electric company required more insurance
coverage on her home; Vision Solar allegedly got Plaintiff Disla the additional insurance
coverage at no cost to Plaintiff Disla.
Plaintiff Disla and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages, including
without limitation, an increase in their monthly expenses, time and aggravation related to making
any attempt to get a response or solution from Vision Solar, and other economic and non-
economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Disla because Plaintiff Disla reasonably relied upon the veracity of Vision
Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel System and would not
have purchased a Solar Panel System from Vision Solar absent the material and foundational
misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Disla.
14
E. PLAINTIFF DONAHUE
Plaintiff Deborah Donahue (“Plaintiff Donahue”) is a citizen and resident of the
State of Florida.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Donahue into purchasing a Solar Panel System
from Vision Solar, financed by Financing Company Sunlight Financial and serviced by
Financing Company TechCU, in December 29, 2021 through an at-home solicitation.
Donahue to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several
a. Plaintiff Donahue would receive a large federal tax credit to help pay for
the Solar Panel System despite knowing Plaintiff Donahue was likely
ineligible for such a tax credit;
b. Plaintiff Donahue would receive money back from her electric company;
c. Plaintiff Donahue’s electricity bill with the Solar Panel System installed,
combined with the Solar Panel System payments, would be a lesser
amount than her current electricity bills;
d. Vision Solar would inspect Plaintiff Donahue’s roof to ensure it was
structurally sound for installation of the Solar Panel System;
e. Vision Solar would remove and reinstall the Solar Panel System at no
cost, if Plaintiff Donahue’s roof needed replacement or repair;
f. Vision Solar would repair Plaintiff Donahue’s roof at no cost if there were
any leaks; and
15
g. Vision Solar would reimburse Plaintiff Donahue for solar panel payments
until activation.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Donahue,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Donahue
a. Making multiple unsolicited calls for the purpose of setting up an in-home
sales pitch;
b. Staying in Plaintiff Donahue’s home for an extended time;
c. Dissuading Plaintiff Donahue from discussing the contract with her
husband, who she was in the process of divorcing; and
d. Providing a copy of the contract only after the cancelation period had
expired.
Vision Solar installed a Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Donahue’s home on
February 23, 2022, despite not obtaining a permit or Permission to Operate for Solar Panel
System to be connected to the power grid.
Vision Solar still has not obtained the required permits or Permission to Operate
from local authorities, meaning that after fifteen (15) months of payments Plaintiff Donahue’s
Solar Panel System still does not function.
Plaintiff Donahue has paid approximately $350 each month between electric bills
and solar panel payments, even though the Solar Panel System is not functioning.
Additionally, Plaintiff Donahue did not receive the promised reimbursements and
tax credit.
16
Vision Solar deflected Plaintiff Donahue’s complaints using their Concierge and
Customer Service departments, including by:
a. Ignoring Plaintiff Donahue’s inquiries about lack of permitting;
b. Ignoring Plaintiff Donahue’s inquiries about failed inspections;
c. Promising reimbursements to Plaintiff Donahue which Vision Solar never
intended to provide; and
d. Telling Plaintiff Donahue that the reason for the delay was that the
“drawings are being updated” and everything will be submitted “soon”
when in fact the reason for the delay was simply Vision Solar’s
unwillingness to obtain the permits or Permission to Operate.
Despite Financing Companies’ knowledge of Vision Solar’s conduct, Plaintiff
Donahue continues to be charged for the financing of her non-functioning Solar Panel System
and makes payments because she fears the legal and credit repercussions of nonpayment.
Plaintiff Donahue and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
including without limitation, an increase in monthly expenses, time and aggravation related to
making any attempt to get a response or solution from Vision Solar, and other economic and
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Donahue because Plaintiff Donahue reasonably relied upon the veracity of
Vision Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel System and
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Donahue.
17
F. PLAINTIFF FAHEY
Plaintiff Brian Fahey (“Plaintiff Fahey”) is a citizen and resident of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Fahey is 72 years old.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Fahey into purchasing a Solar Panel System and
financing it via Sunlight Financial in January 25, 2022 during an unexpected at-home
solicitation.
Fahey to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several
limited to:
a. Representing that Plaintiff Fahey would receive a $10,000 tax credit
despite knowing Plaintiff Fahey was unlikely to be eligible for such a tax
credit;
b. Representing that the Solar Panel System would generate 125% of
Plaintiff Fahey’s electric usage despite knowing that the Solar Panel
Systems were incapable of such output;
c. Representing that Vision Solar would handle all permitting prior to
installation despite knowing that Vision Solar would not obtain permits or
Permission to Operate before installing the Solar Panel System;
d. Representing that Plaintiff Fahey's financing payments would be $123 per
month for the Solar Panel System despite knowing that, as a result of
Plaintiff Fahey’s ineligibility for a tax credit, Plaintiff Fahey’s payments
would increase substantially after 18 months;
18
e. Representing that Plaintiff Fahey would only pay $8 per month for
electricity as a result of the Solar Panel System;
f. Representing that Vision Solar would reimburse Plaintiff Fahey for any
double payments for electric and solar panels despite having no intention
of doing so;
g. Falsely promising a $500 sign-on bonus and another $500 for each referral
who signed up;
h. Falsely promising to install a ground array system in Plaintiff Fahey’s
field and install solar on the roof of his barn; and
i. Representing that all maintenance, repairs, and tree trimming would be
done at no additional cost.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Fahey,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Fahey into
agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but not limited to:
a. Staying in Plaintiff Fahey’s home extremely late and for over 4 hours;
b. Insisting to Plaintiff Fahey that he drove all the way from New Jersey and
intended to get the deal signed that day;
c. Speaking quickly, despite being informed that Plaintiff Fahey’s wife has
degenerative brain disease and uses hearing aids;
d. Using a small tablet to show Plaintiff Fahey agreements for review and
signatures, preventing Plaintiff Fahey from adequately reviewing them;
and
19
e. Providing a copy of the contract only months later, after the cancelation
period had passed, preventing Plaintiff Fahey from canceling the contract.
Vision Solar installed a Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Fahey’s home in early
February 2022, despite knowing that the Solar Panel System was not permitted and did not have
Permission to Operate. The system remained unpermitted and inactive without Permission to
Operate for approximately eight months.
During those eight months, Plaintiff Fahey paid between $233 and $280 each
month between electric bills and solar panel payments, even though the Solar Panel System was
not functioning.
Additionally, Plaintiff Fahey did not receive the promised reimbursements, tax
credit, and other benefits.
Vision Solar deflected Plaintiff Fahey’s complaints using their Concierge and
Customer Retention departments, ignoring inquiries about final inspections and unreturned
reimbursements and failing to provide a copy of the signed contract for months.
Despite Financing Company Sunlight Financials’ knowledge of Vision Solar’s
conduct, Sunlight Financial continued charging Plaintiff Fahey for the financing of his non-
functioning Solar Panel System. Plaintiff Fahey made payments because he feared the legal and
credit repercussions of nonpayment.
Plaintiff Fahey and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages, including
economic harm.
20
harmed Plaintiff Fahey because Plaintiff Fahey reasonably relied upon the veracity of Vision
misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Fahey.
G. PLAINTIFF FROMENT
Plaintiff Shawn Froment (“Plaintiff Froment”) is a citizen and resident of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Froment into purchasing a Solar Panel System on
October 14, 2021, financed by KeyBank, during an at-home solicitation.
Froment to purchase a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several material
and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including but not limited to,
representing that:
a. Vision Solar had the proper permits prior to installing the Solar Panel
System despite knowing Vision Solar had not obtained the required
permits or Permission to Operate;
b. The Solar Panel System “would pay itself” by reducing the amount of
power Plaintiff Froment would need to use from the power company
despite knowing the Solar Panel System was incapable of such output; and
c. Vision Solar would repair Plaintiff Froment’s roof and perform tree
maintenance at no cost with no intention of providing those services.
Contrary to the representations Vision Solar made to Plaintiff Froment:
21
a. Vision Solar did not obtain permits or Permission to Operate prior to
installing Plaintiff Froment’s Solar Panel System; and
b. The Solar Panel System has not reduced Plaintiff Froment’s electricity
bill.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Froment,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Froment
a. Making multiple cold calls to schedule an in-home sales pitch;
b. Staying much longer than Plaintiff Froment wanted; and
c. Pressuring Plaintiff Froment into signing the contract on the same day
without having adequate time to review it.
Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System on June 22, 2022, removed the
panels one week later for roof repairs, and reinstalled the panels in the second week of January
2023; the panels have yet to be activated, despite a time span of nearly seventeen (17) months.
During this time, Plaintiff Froment has paid an average of $600 each month for
electric bills and has been required to pay additionally for the Solar Panel System even though
the solar panels are not functioning as promised.
Instead of acknowledging Vision Solar’s practices and cancelling the financing
agreement as Plaintiff Froment wished, KeyBank permitted Vision Solar to make Plaintiff
Froment’s payments for him in order to conceal Vision Solar’s conduct and to prevent Plaintiff
Froment from cancelling the agreement as he is entitled to do.
Vision Solar prioritized its own benefit over the customer’s, including by:
22
a. Pestering Plaintiff Froment to install panels before his roof replacement,
despite being informed of the scheduled roof work;
b. Using wrong brackets during initial installation, causing multiple holes in
the roof and $1,200 in repair costs;
c. Sending a tree service to his house without providing advance notice; and
d. Leaving panels in the ground for months after initial installation and
removal.
Vision Solar ignored Plaintiff Froment’s complaints, failed to provide updates or
answers, and delayed reinstalling the panels and obtaining proper permits and inspections.
Plaintiff Froment and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
including, without limitation, an increase in their monthly expenses, time and aggravation related
to making any attempt to get a response or solution from Vision Solar, and other economic and
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Froment because Plaintiff Froment reasonably relied upon the veracity of
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Froment.
H. PLAINTIFF HASTREITER
Plaintiff Carlyn Hastreiter (“Plaintiff Hastreiter”) is a citizen and resident of the
State of Florida. Plaintiff Hastreiter is 83 years old.
23
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Hastreiter into purchasing a Solar Panel System
from Vision Solar, financed by Dividend Finance, on August 13, 2022 after an in-home
appointment.
Hastreiter into purchasing a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting material and
foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including but not limited to
representing:
a. That Vision Solar would take care of all required permits and would not
install the Solar Panel System until obtaining the required permits and
Permission to Operate; and
b. That Plaintiff Hastreiter would have a significantly lower electric bill –
specifically saying it would be “not quite half, but substantially lower.”
Contrary to these representations:
a. Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System prior to obtaining permits
and Permission to Operate. Because Financing Company Dividend
Finance then started charging Plaintiff Hastreiter for the Solar Panel
System, Plaintiff Hastreiter has been forced to pay for a non-functioning
Solar Panel System; and
b. Plaintiff Hastreiter’s Solar Panel System has not resulted in any savings,
let alone substantial savings.
Vision Solar installed the solar panels in September 2022, but they were only
functionally activated on March 3, 2023 – a time span of nearly 7 months from the time of
installation, which far exceeds Vision Solar’s estimated completion time of 90 days after signing.
24
During this period, Plaintiff Hastreiter paid $280 each month for electric bills and
financing of a Solar Panel System despite the fact that the Solar Panel System was not permitted,
did not have Permission to Operate, and therefore was not functioning.
Vision Solar deflected Plaintiff Hastreiter’s complaints via their Concierge and
Customer Retention departments by redirecting her calls, hanging up on her, and failing to return
promised callbacks. Eventually, after she threatened to contact an attorney, her panels were
finally activated.
At one point, Vision Solar falsely told Plaintiff Hastreiter that “someone” had
turned her panels off but the Vision Solar representative could not say why because it “wasn’t in
his department.” Only after Plaintiff Hastreiter told Vision Solar that she would contact an
attorney if Vision Solar did not turn her panels on soon were her panels finally activated.
Plaintiff Hastreiter and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
including without limitation, an increase in their monthly expenses, time and aggravation related
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Hastreiter because Plaintiff Hastreiter reasonably relied upon the veracity of
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Hastreiter.
I. PLAINTIFF HENDERSON
25
Plaintiff Lyndsey Henderson (“Plaintiff Henderson”) is a citizen and resident of
the State of New Jersey.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Henderson into purchasing a Solar Panel System
from Vision Solar, financed through Financing Companies KeyBank and Dividend Finance, in
May 2022 when she assumed the contract from the previous homeowner.
Henderson into the contract by misrepresenting several material and foundational aspects of the
sales and financing agreements, including but not limited to telling Plaintiff Henderson that her
monthly electric bill would be significantly lower due to the panels.
Contrary to these promises, Plaintiff Henderson’s electric bill has remained
extremely high.
Vision Solar pressured Plaintiff Henderson into entering the financing agreement
as a “take-it-or-leave-it deal,” stating that without this agreement, she would not be able to
purchase the house.
Vision Solar installed the solar panels in May 2022, but they have yet to be
activated – a time span of 11 months from when Plaintiff Henderson entered into the contract
and nearly 3 years from when the prior homeowner contracted with Vision Solar for the same
panels, far exceeding the estimated completion time of 90 days after signing.
During this period, Plaintiff Henderson paid an average of $649 each month for
electric bills and solar panels, without obtaining the contracted for benefits of a functioning Solar
Panel System.
Vision Solar’s Concierge and Customer Retention departments deflected Plaintiff
Henderson’s complaints by not returning her calls or providing answers for over 7 months,
26
requesting her electric bills without taking further action, failing to send someone to inspect the
panels when requested, and denying her access to a manager or supervisor for assistance.
Plaintiff Henderson unsuccessfully tried to cancel her loan, eventually managing only to defer
her panel payments.
Plaintiff Henderson and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
including increased monthly expenses, time and aggravation in seeking responses or solutions
from Vision Solar, and other economic and non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Henderson because Plaintiff Henderson reasonably relied upon the veracity of
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Henderson.
J. THE LUPIEN PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs Stephanie and Dennis Lupien (“the Lupien Plaintiffs”) are citizens and
residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Vision Solar induced the Lupien Plaintiffs to purchase solar panels from Vision
Solar, financed by Financing Company Dividend Finance, on July 11, 2022, the same day that a
Vision Solar salesperson visited their home.
Like other Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Vision Solar induced the Lupien
Plaintiffs into purchasing a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several
27
a. The Solar Panel System would cover 100% of the Lupien Plaintiffs’
electric needs despite knowing the Solar Panel System would not;
b. The Lupien Plaintiffs would receive a large federal tax credit despite
Vision Solar knowing they were likely ineligible for the credit; and
c. Vision Solar would repair any damage to the solar panels, roof, or gutters
for the 25-year period they were contracted to own the panels despite
Vision Solar knowing that it would not do so.
Vision Solar later backtracked on its claims regarding Solar Panel System
performance, claiming that 100% coverage was impossible, and requiring the Lupien Plaintiffs to
sign a new contract for less than half coverage. Additionally, Vision Solar has yet to fix the
gutters damaged by snow accumulation under the panels despite the Lupien Plaintiffs’ frequent
inquiries.
While Vision Solar claimed to have the necessary permits, the master electrician
had not signed off on them, leaving the Lupien Plaintiffs waiting for a resolution.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to the Lupien
Plaintiffs, Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce the
Lupien Plaintiffs into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but not
limited to:
a. Repeatedly making unsolicited telephone calls to the Lupien Plaintiffs;
b. Waiting in the Lupien Plaintiffs’ driveway until the Lupien Plaintiffs
agreed to purchase a Solar Panel System;
c. Pressuring the Lupien Plaintiffs to sign agreements the same day as the in-
person visit; and
28
d. Using a small mobile device to obtain the Lupien Plaintiffs’ signatures and
to prevent the Lupien Plaintiffs from reading or reviewing the terms of
agreements.
Vision Solar completed the installation of the Solar Panel System on November 8,
2022, but the Lupien Plaintiffs’ Solar Panel System is still not connected to the power grid due to
a lack of Permission to Operate.
During the eight (8) month period from installation to the present, the Lupien
Plaintiffs have been forced to make payments for their non-functioning Solar Panel System
despite Financing Company Dividend’s knowledge of Vision Solar’s conduct.
The payments for the Solar Panel System and the non-reduced electric bill total
over $600 per month.
The Lupien Plaintiffs have also been harmed by the shoddy construction and
workmanship caused by Vision Solar’s unlicensed contractors. For example:
a. Vision Solar caused structural damage to gutters of the Lupien Plaintiffs’
home;
b. Vision Solar’s improper installation of the Solar Panel System caused
snow to accumulate under panels, damaging the Lupien Plaintiffs’ roof;
and
c. Vision Solar switched electricians mid-project resulting in delays and
mistakes.
Vision Solar’s Concierge and Customer Retention departments ignored the
Lupien Plaintiffs’ complaints, not returning their calls or acting to repair damages despite
29
promising they would, thereby thwarting the Lupien Plaintiffs’ ability to mitigate the damages
Vision Solar caused.
As a result of Vision Solar’s misrepresentations and unfair business practices, the
Lupien Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
including increased monthly expenses, time spent seeking responses or solutions from Vision
Solar, and other economic and non-economic harm.
harmed the Lupien Plaintiffs by causing the Lupien Plaintiffs to reasonably rely upon the
veracity of Vision Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel
System, and the Lupien Plaintiffs would not have purchased a Solar Panel System from Vision
Solar absent the material and foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to the
Lupien Plaintiffs.
K. PLAINTIFF MCCLELLAND
Plaintiff Matthew McClelland (“Plaintiff McClelland”) is a citizen and resident of
the State of New Jersey.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff McClelland to purchase a Solar Panel System with
Vision Solar, financed through Financing Company Sunlight Financial, when a Vision Solar
sales representative visited Plaintiff McClelland’s home on September 8, 2022.
McClelland into agreeing to purchase a Solar Panel System by systemically misrepresenting
several material and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including but
not limited to promising:
30
a. That Plaintiff McClelland would receive an $8,600 tax credit and monthly
payments of $54 from the state of New Jersey for purchasing a Solar Panel
System;
b. That the Solar Panel System would cover all electric bills and “pay for
itself”; and
c. That prior to panel installation Vision Solar would upgrade Plaintiff
McClelland’s electrical system, including the main panel, circuit breaker,
and generator, from 100 amps to 200 amps.
Contrary to what Plaintiff McClelland was promised, Plaintiff McClelland has not
received a solar tax credit, will be required to pay $85 to $123 per month in solar panel payments
despite being promised a $37 per month rate, and has yet to receive the upgrades to his system
necessary for a functioning Solar Panel System.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff
McClelland, Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce
Plaintiff McClelland into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but
not limited to:
a. Remaining in Plaintiff McClelland’s home for over 5 hours and not
leaving until close to midnight (despite Plaintiff McClelland asking on
several occasions “how much longer” this would take);
b. Insisting that Plaintiff McClelland sign on the sales representative’s iPad;
c. Insisting that this signature be done in one location of the document such
that Plaintiff McClelland was unable to read the full set of documents he
31
was signing and then proceeding to fill in Plaintiff McClelland’s signature
throughout the rest of the document; and
d. Only providing Plaintiff McClelland with a partial copy of his contract
despite requirements to provide a full copy immediately.
Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System without the required permits or
Permission to Operate on October 26, 2022, and six (6) months later Plaintiff McClelland’s Solar
Panel System is still not connected to the power grid.
During that time, Plaintiff McClelland has continued to pay $65-$70 each month
for his electric bills, an amount which should have been reduced by the Solar Panel System.
Financing Company Sunlight Financial has concealed Vision Solar’s conduct by
allowing Vision Solar to make payments for Plaintiff McClelland rather than cancelling the
agreement as desired by Plaintiff McClelland.
Vision Solar has used its Concierge and Customer Retention departments to
deflect and ignore Plaintiff McClelland’s complaints by, for example:
a. Claiming upgrades were necessary to get Permission to Operate, but never
performing them;
b. Ignoring his phone calls; and
c. Telling Plaintiff McClelland in response to his inquiries that Vision Solar
will “look into it” but never doing so.
Plaintiff McClelland and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
32
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff McClelland by causing Plaintiff McClelland to reasonably rely upon the
veracity of Vision Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel
System, and Plaintiff McClelland would not have purchased a Solar Panel System from Vision
Solar absent the material and foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff
McClelland.
L. PLAINTIFF NORALUS
Plaintiff Nicola Noralus (“Plaintiff Noralus”) is a citizen and resident of the State
of Florida.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Noralus to purchase a Solar Panel System with
Vision Solar, financed through Financing Company Sunlight Financial, when a Vision Solar
sales representative visited Plaintiff Noralus’ home.
Noralus into agreeing to purchase a Solar Panel System by systemically misrepresenting several
a. Vision Solar would take care of all required permitting prior to installation
despite Vision Solar knowing that it would not obtain permits or
Permission to Operate as required;
b. The Solar Panel System would “pay for [itself]” despite knowing the Solar
Panel System would not;
33
c. Plaintiff Noralus would receive a large federal tax credit despite knowing
that Plaintiff Noralus was unlikely to be eligible for such a tax credit;
d. Vision Solar would repair Plaintiff Noralus’ roof if any damage occurred
during installation despite knowing this to be false; and
e. Plaintiff Noralus would have lower electric bills as a result of the Solar
Panel System and even receive money back from the electric company at
the end of the year despite knowing both to be false.
Contrary to Vision Solar’s representations:
a. Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Noralus’
residence without obtaining permits or Permission to Operate;
b. Plaintiff Noralus is ineligible for the large tax credit Vision Solar
promised her;
c. Vision Solar refuses to repair the damage Vision Solar’s contractors
caused to Plaintiff Noralus’ roof; and
d. Plaintiff Noralus’ electricity bills have not been lowered by the Solar
Panel System.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Noralus,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Noralus
into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but not limited to, by:
a. Making multiple unsolicited calls to set up an in-home sales pitch;
b. Staying in her home for longer than 2 hours;
c. Falsely telling Plaintiff Noralus that her signature only would go to
approval of the offer rather than binding her into a contract; and
34
d. Pressuring Plaintiff Noralus to sign the contract that night – without the
chance to adequately review the documents – because it was a “one-time
deal.”
Financing Company Sunlight Financial required Plaintiff Noralus to make
payments for the financing of the Solar Panel System installed at Plaintiff Noralus’ home despite
the fact that Vision Solar had not obtained permitting or Permission to Operate, which means
Plaintiff Noralus’ Solar Panel System was not functioning.
Financing Company Sunlight Financial required payments despite Plaintiff
Noralus informing them that Vision Solar had not obtained the required permits or Permission to
Operate, and despite the fact that Financing Company Sunlight Financial has received hundreds
of complaints regarding Vision Solar’s tactics.
Plaintiff Noralus made payments under duress, fearing the legal and credit
consequences of nonpayment.
Vision Solar’s Concierge and Customer Retention departments deflected and
ignored Plaintiff Noralus’ complaints, making further misrepresentations designed to prevent
Plaintiff Noralus from taking activity to mitigate damages or rectify the situation.
Plaintiff Noralus and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Noralus because Plaintiff Noralus reasonably relied upon the veracity of Vision
35
misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Noralus.
M. PLAINTIFF PAGANO
Plaintiff Darlene Pagano (“Plaintiff Pagano”) is a citizen and resident of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Pagano into leasing a Solar Panel System from
Vision Solar, financed by Financing Company Additional Financial, when a Vision Solar
salesperson visited Plaintiff Pagano’s home on June 16, 2021.
Pagano to lease a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several material and
foundational aspects of the leasing agreements, including, but not limited to, representing that:
a. The Solar Panel System would only be installed once Vision Solar had
obtained the required permits and Permission to Operate;
b. Plaintiff Pagano would receive a large federal tax credit for installing the
Solar Panel System;
c. If Plaintiff Pagano applied the tax credit she received to her Solar Panel
System, her payments would drop from $180 a month to $135 a month;
and
d. Plaintiff Pagano’s electricity bill would be no more than $10-$15 per
month for a service line fee.
Contrary to Vision Solar’s representations, Vision Solar:
36
a. Did not obtain permits or Permission to Operate prior to installing the
Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Pagano’s home; and
b. The terms of the financing agreement called for Plaintiff Pagano’s
payments to increase to $250 if she did not make a large payment equal to
26% of the purchase price of the Solar Panel System to the principal.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Pagano,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Pagano
a. Staying in Plaintiff Pagano’s home for multiple hours and until nearly
10:00 pm, despite being asked to leave numerous times;
b. Stating that if the agreement was not signed that night, the prices would go
up;
c. Refusing to provide Plaintiff Pagano with a copy of the agreement to
review until it was signed;
d. Discouraging Plaintiff Pagano from reviewing and discussing the
agreement before signing while saying Plaintiff Pagano should want to
enter into an agreement with “this great company tonight”;
e. Stating that Plaintiff Pagano’s signature was only for preapproval; and
f. Requiring that Plaintiff Pagano sign the document on the salesperson’s
laptop without providing Plaintiff Pagano an opportunity to review the
contract.
Despite being informed that Vision Solar had installed Plaintiff Pagano’s Solar
Panel System without obtaining the permits or Permission to Operate as required, Financing
37
Company Additional Financial has required Plaintiff Pagano to make payments for her Solar
Panel System for sixteen (16) months while her Solar Panel System was not functional, resulting
in thousands of dollars in losses.
During that time, Plaintiff Pagano paid between $180 and $250 each month for
solar panels and a higher-than-expected electric bill, even though her Solar Panel System was not
functioning.
Plaintiff Pagano was also harmed due to Vision Solar’s shoddy construction and
workmanship. For example:
a. Plaintiff Pagano’s ridge vent on her roof blew off;
b. Collar ties in the attic were not put in place;
c. Plaintiff Pagano needed to redirect the conduit along the side of the house
and to lift shingles from where Vision Solar removed five panels, though
this could not be fixed because they did not “have the right glue”; and
d. Vision Solar did not immediately activate the panels and later only
activated a portion of them.
Vision Solar used its Concierge and Customer Retention departments to deflect
and ignore Plaintiff Pagano’s complaints. For example, Vision Solar gave various excuses as to
why the panels were not activated for over 6 months and took several months, despite regular
calls, to provide her with her “reimbursements” (after telling her that the reimbursements were in
accounting but that accounting “doesn’t have a phone number”). Even after Vision Solar finally
provided the promised reimbursements, these reimbursements were only partial. These actions
were designed to prevent Plaintiff Pagano from taking action to mitigate the situation or
cancelling the agreement.
38
Plaintiff Pagano and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Pagano because Plaintiff Pagano reasonably relied upon the veracity of Vision
misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Pagano.
N. THE PEREZ PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs Evelyn and Jorge Perez (“the Perez Plaintiffs”) are citizens and
residents of the State of Florida. Evelyn Perez is 63 years old, and Jorge Perez is 68 years old.
Vision Solar induced the Perez Plaintiffs to purchase a Solar Panel System with
Vision Solar, financed through Financing Company Dividend Financial, in December 2022 when
a Vision Solar sales representative visited their home.
Like other Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Vision Solar induced the Perez
Plaintiffs into agreeing to purchase a Solar Panel System by systemically misrepresenting several
limited to representing:
a. That Vision Solar would obtain the necessary permits and Permission to
Operate prior to installation;
39
b. That the Perez Plaintiffs would save thousands of dollars on their electric
bill and the Solar Panel System would “pay for itself”;
c. That Vision Solar would repair their roof at no cost if needed; and
d. That the Perez Plaintiffs would receive a large federal tax credit to help
offset the cost of the Solar Panel System.
Contrary to what the Perez Plaintiffs were promised, Vision Solar:
a. Did not obtain the permits required to install and connect the Solar Panel
System to the power grid. As a result, the Perez Plaintiffs have received
notices from the city that they would either have to pay a potential fine of
$1,000 per week or there would have to be demolition of the structure
lacking a permit. 1
b. The Perez Plaintiffs have not seen any savings on their monthly utility
bills; and
c. The Perez Plaintiffs have yet to receive any tax credit and were told by
their accountant that they will not receive any tax credit until the panels
are turned on.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to the Perez Plaintiffs,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce the Perez
Plaintiffs, seniors aged 63 and 68, into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System,
including, but not limited to:
a. Staying in their home for well beyond three hours;
1
For now, the city of Sunrise has decided not to enforce $1,000 per week fine because “more than 27 families” in
Sunrise face the same issues with Vision Solar.
40
b. Eliciting sympathy to further the sales pitch by informing the Perez
Plaintiffs about the salesperson’s personal challenges, such as being a drug
addict who just lost a friend to a fentanyl overdose and needing to make a
sale because he was broke; and
c. Pressuring the Perez Plaintiffs to sign the agreement the same day as the
visit, without allowing for their review.
While Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System in the first week of January
2023, the panels are still not activated, and Vision Solar’s conduct to date, and the resultant
issues with the City of Sunrise Magistrate, suggests the project length will far exceed Vision
Solar’s estimated completion time of 90 days after signing.
During that time, the Perez Plaintiffs have paid $270 each month in electric bills
even though they have not been able to experience the benefits of a functioning Solar Panel
System.
The Perez Plaintiffs have also been damaged by Vision Solar’s shoddy
construction and workmanship, such as the Solar Panel System failing an inspection due to
missing DC converters and also failing local fire inspections.
Vision Solar’s Concierge and Customer Retention departments have deflected and
ignored the Perez Plaintiffs’ complaints, including by:
a. Denying their request to cancel their loan;
b. Misrepresenting to Channel 6 News their communication with the Perez
Plaintiffs; and
c. Not responding to their calls or other inquiries.
41
The Perez Plaintiffs have met with the City of Sunrise Magistrate on three
separate occasions to resolve these issues, with a hearing date now set for May 10, 2023.
Despite being well aware of Vision Solar’s conduct, Dividend Financial continues
charging the Perez Plaintiffs on a monthly basis. Dividend Financial refuses to cancel the
contract and instead permits Vision Solar to make payments on behalf of the Perez Plaintiffs,
conduct meant to conceal Vision Solar’s misconduct.
Perez Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages, including
economic harm.
harmed the Perez Plaintiffs because the Perez Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the veracity of
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to the Perez Plaintiffs.
O. PLAINTIFF QUANTZ
Plaintiff Karen Quantz (“Plaintiff Quantz”) is a citizen and resident of the State of
Florida.
Plaintiff Quantz agreed to lease a Solar Panel System through IGS Solar on
February 24, 2022, after a Vision Solar salesperson visited her home.
Quantz into leasing the Solar Panel System by systemically misrepresenting several material and
42
foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including but not limited to,
representing that:
a. Vision Solar would obtain all necessary permits and Permission to Operate
before installing the Solar Panel System;
b. The Solar Panel System would generate enough power to fully offset
Plaintiff Quantz’s normal electricity usage; and
c. Because Plaintiff Quantz was electing to lease rather than purchase,
Vision Solar and IGS Solar would allow her to move the panels from her
current home to another home if she chose to move.
However, contrary to what Plaintiff Quantz was promised by Vision Solar:
a. The Solar Panel System has never generated enough electricity to cover
her electric bill;
b. Plaintiff Quantz has been charged an extra fee each month from the
electric company just for having solar panels in place; and
c. Vision Solar and IGS Solar have told Plaintiff Quantz that she may not
remove the panels from her current residence and take them to a new
residence with her.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Quantz,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Quantaz
a. Pressuring her into signing up right away or risk losing the offered price;
43
b. Approving her for financing options to lease by paying a fee for a “credit
wipe” program, due to her not getting approval for financing to purchase
because of her credit score; and
c. Emailing her the agreement but requiring and pressuring her to sign it then
and there, before she could read through it.
While Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System in late April or early May of
2022, the panels were only activated around December 19, 2022, a time span of 10 months,
which far exceeds Vision Solar’s estimated completion time of 90 days after signing.
Despite knowing of Vision Solar’s behavior, IGS Solar required Plaintiff Quantz
to make payments notwithstanding the nonperformance of her Solar Panel System. Plaintiff
Quantz made payments fearing legal action or credit consequences for nonpayment.
Between May of 2022 and December 19, 2022, Plaintiff Quantz paid her power
company a monthly $10 fee as a result of her Solar Panel System being installed (even though it
was not functioning due to a lack of permitting) and paid $59/month to Financing Company IGS
Solar for the Solar Panel System which was not functioning.
Plaintiff Quantz asked Vision Solar to exit her contract due to Vision Solar’s
nonperformance. Vision Solar deflected Plaintiff Quantz’s complaints via the Concierge and
Customer Retention departments by, amongst other things:
a. Ignoring her for months before finally hooking up her panels (despite the
title company reaching out to Vision Solar multiple times); and
b. Not signing an affidavit to close the permit on the panels, which would
allow her to sell her house.
44
Plaintiff Quantz has been unable to sell her house because of Vision Solar’s
failure to sign the requested affidavit.
Plaintiff Quantz and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Quantz because Plaintiff Quantz reasonably relied upon the veracity of Vision
misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Quantz.
P. PLAINTIFF RORRIS
Plaintiff Greg Rorris (“Plaintiff Rorris”) is a citizen and resident of the State of
Florida.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Rorris into purchasing a Solar Panel System from
Vision Solar, financed through Financing Company Sunlight Financial, on June 10, 2021 when a
Vision Solar salesperson visited his home.
Rorris into agreeing to purchase a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several
material and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including, but not
limited to:
45
a. Representing that Vision Solar would obtain all necessary permits and
Permission to Operate required to connect the Solar Panel System to the
power grid prior to installing the Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Rorris’
residence;
b. Representing that the Solar Panel System would produce enough
electricity for Plaintiff Rorris that it would cover the entirety of Plaintiff
Rorris’ electricity needs, eliminate the need to draw electricity from the
power grid, such that Plaintiff Rorris would only be responsible for paying
the electric company a $20-$25 service fee each month;
c. Representing that Plaintiff Rorris would receive a $500 bonus for each
successful referral; and
d. Failing to disclose that to prevent his payments from significantly
increasing Plaintiff Rorris would be required to make a large payment
equal to 26% of the price of the Solar Panel System to the Financing
Company financing his purchase, regardless of whether Plaintiff Rorris
received a federal tax credit.
Contrary to the representations made to Plaintiff Rorris, Vision Solar:
a. Did not request the permits until August 16, nearly two months after
installation, and the application was not completed until September;
b. Failed to provide panels that covered Plaintiff Rorris’ usage or electric
bill;
c. Charged monthly utility bills averaging $126 instead of $25-$30; and
46
d. Has not provided the two $500 bonuses for his two (also dissatisfied)
referrals.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Rorris,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Rorris
into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but not limited to,
overstaying their welcome and falsely claiming to have secured special terms for Plaintiff Rorris.
Vision Solar began installing the Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Rorris’ residence
on June 17, 2021 but did not complete the installation until October 2021.
Plaintiff Rorris was forced to himself obtain permitting and Permission to Operate
in mid-October after his utility company informed him that his Solar Panel System was
unpermitted and that if he did not obtain permits and Permission to Operate, he would face
financial consequences.
During that time, Plaintiff Rorris made monthly payments in excess of $126 for
electric bills, even though he did not experience the benefits of a functioning Solar Panel System
until mid-October 2021.
Because Vision Solar prioritized its own benefit over that of the customer’s,
Plaintiff Rorris was damaged by Vision Solar’s shoddy construction, resulting in missing
placards, a melted fuse, and a system that grossly underperformed the promised levels of
production.
Vision Solar’s Concierge and Customer Retention departments deflected Plaintiff
Rorris’ complaints by:
47
a. Promising Plaintiff Rorris that Vision Solar would immediately fix issues
caused by Vision Solar’s shoddy workmanship when in fact it had no
intention to do so;
b. Falsely telling Plaintiff Rorris that Vision Solar was working on getting
payments to him but that “the requests are in accounting”; and
c. Falsely claiming that other parties were responsible for the failure of
Vision Solar to obtain the necessary permits and Permission to Operate.
As a result of Vision Solar’s failures, Plaintiff Rorris was forced to undertake the
following actions himself:
a. Plaintiff Rorris had placards made and mounted;
b. Plaintiff Rorris manually activated the panels at the instruction of the
utility company; and
c. Plaintiff Rorris contracted with another solar panel company to fix Vision
Solar’s shortcomings (which required the installation of 12 additional
panels), at an additional cost of approximately $14,500.
Plaintiff Rorris and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages, including
economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Rorris because Plaintiff Rorris reasonably relied upon the veracity of Vision
48
misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Rorris.
Q. THE SCHMIDT PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs Janice and Joe Schmidt (the “Schmidt Plaintiffs”) are citizens and
residents of the State of Arizona. Janice Schmidt is 77 years old; Joe Schmidt is 79 years old.
Vision Solar induced the Schmidt Plaintiffs into purchasing a Solar Panel System
from Vision Solar, with financing from Financing Company KeyBank, after a Vision Solar
salesperson visited their home on March 19, 2021.
Like other Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Vision Solar induced the
Schmidt Plaintiffs to purchase a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several
material and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including, but not
limited to, representing:
a. That Solar Panel System would produce enough electricity to cover all
their electricity needs, eliminating the need for pay for electricity from the
power company;
b. That the Schmidt Plaintiffs would receive a $9,000 “rebate” as a result of
purchasing the Solar Panel System;
c. That Vision Solar would replace the electric box so the panels could be
properly set up; and
a. The Schmidt Plaintiffs did not receive a $9,000 incentive rebate or tax
credit;
49
b. The Schmidt Plaintiffs were notified that if they did not make a large
principal payment within 18 months, their payments would increase
substantially, from $112 to $153 a month;
c. The Schmidt Plaintiffs’ financing payments for the Solar Panel System
have increased from $112 to $153 a month as a result of the Schmidt
Plaintiffs not making a payment equal to 26% of the price of the Solar
Panel System within 18 months; and
d. The Solar Panel System installed at the Schmidt Plaintiffs’ residence does
not cover all of their electricity needs.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to the Schmidt
Plaintiffs, Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce the
Schmidt Plaintiffs, both of whom are in their 70’s, into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar
Panel System, including, but not limited to:
a. Requiring the Schmidt Plaintiffs to review and sign agreements on a small
tablet device and not affording the Schmidt Plaintiffs an opportunity to
review the agreements before signing;
b. Falsely stating that the Schmidt Plaintiffs were required to sign the
agreement the same day; and
c. Only returning a copy of the contract on a weekend day, the day before the
3-day cancellation policy was due to expire, thereby leading the Schmidt
Plaintiffs to believe they missed their opportunity to cancel.
Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System at the Schmidt Plaintiffs’ residence
without first obtaining permits or Permission to Operate in April 2021. The required permits and
50
Permission to Operate for the Schmidt’s Solar Panel System was not obtained until eight (8)
months later, on November 23, 2021.
Despite the fact that Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System without
Permission to Operate, and that as a result the Solar Panel System was not functioning,
Financing Company KeyBank required the Schmidt Plaintiffs to make financing payments for
their Solar Panel System during the eight months of non-functionality.
During that time, the Schmidt Plaintiffs paid over $200 each month between
electric bills and solar panel fees, even though they did not obtain the contracted for benefit of
functioning solar panels until November 23, 2021.
The Schmidt Plaintiffs have also suffered damages from the shoddy construction
and workmanship of Vision Solar’s unlicensed contractors. For example:
a. Vision Solar’s contractors obtained the wrong placards; and
b. Vision Solar’s contractors failed to provide the county inspectors with
necessary information required to pass inspection.
Vision Solar also deflected and ignored the Schmidt Plaintiffs’ multiple
complaints by conjuring various excuses and redirecting culpability, including by sending
someone to the Schmidt Plaintiffs’ home to blame them in person for supposedly ordering the
wrong part when Vision Solar had ordered the part. Vision Solar thereby thwarted the Schmidt
Plaintiffs’ ability to take any actions to mitigate their damages.
Schmidt Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
51
non-economic harm.
harmed the Schmidt Plaintiffs because the Schmidt Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the veracity
of Vision Solar’s representations in making the decision to purchase a Solar Panel System and
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to the Schmidt Plaintiffs.
R. PLAINTIFF STEVENS
Plaintiff Danielle Stevens (“Plaintiff Stevens”) is a citizen and resident of the
State of Florida.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Stevens to purchase a Solar Panel System from
Vision Solar, with financing from Financing Company Dividend Finance, after a Vision Solar
salesperson visited her home.
Stevens to purchase a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several material and
foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including, but not limited to,
representing that:
a. Vision Solar had already acquired the necessary permits or Permission to
Operate as required by local authorities prior to installing the Solar Panel
System;
b. Vision Solar’s Solar Panel System would “pay for itself” through the
reduction of Plaintiff Stevens’ electric bill;
52
c. Vision Solar would repair or replace the roof and remove trees, as required
for the Solar Panel System to be installed, at no cost to Plaintiff Stevens;
and
d. Vision Solar would pay Plaintiff Stevens a $1,000 sign-on bonus.
a. Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System without obtaining the
required permits or Permission to Operate from local authorities;
b. Vision Solar turned on the Solar Panel System prior to obtaining the
required permits or Permission to Operate from local authorities, resulting
in Plaintiff Stevens being charged additional amounts by Plaintiff Stevens’
power company;
c. Plaintiff Stevens did not receive a $1,000 sign-on bonus; and
d. Vision Solar’s Solar Panel System has substantially underperformed, not
delivering anywhere near the adequate amount of power to “pay for
itself.”
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Stevens,
Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce Plaintiff Stevens
a. Presenting the contract to Plaintiff Stevens on the Vision Solar
salesperson’s mobile device, preventing Plaintiff Stevens from adequately
reading or reviewing the terms of the agreements;
b. Failing to provide a copy of the signed contract to Plaintiff Stevens until
days or weeks later, after the cancellation period had passed; and
53
c. Making multiple unsolicited cold calls for the purpose of setting up an in-
home sales visit.
Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System without permits or Permission to
Operate from local authorities, meaning that the Solar Panel System was not hooked up to the
power grid and thus was not providing any benefit to Plaintiff Stevens.
Despite this, Financing Company Dividend Financial nevertheless began
requiring that Plaintiff Stevens make payments towards the principal of the loan she had been
induced into taking out.
Plaintiff Stevens was also forced to make additional payments to her power
company because of Vision Solar’s unpermitted installation of the Solar Panel System.
Plaintiff Stevens also suffered damages due to Vision Solar’s shoddy construction
and workmanship, which included Vision Solar not heeding to, or providing to the utility
company, the one-line drawing to match the system that was installed on Plaintiff Stevens’ roof.
Vision Solar used the Concierge and Customer Retention departments to ignore
and deflect Plaintiff Stevens’ complaints, despite Plaintiff Stevens calling weekly for nearly five
months. For example:
a. Vision Solar promised to, but did not, schedule inspections by local
authorities to connect the Solar Panel System to the power grid;
b. Vision Solar promised to, but did not, start or file permit applications with
local authorities; and
c. Vision Solar promised to, but did not, pay Plaintiff Stevens a $1,000 sign-
on bonus.
54
Plaintiff Stevens and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Stevens because Plaintiff Stevens reasonably relied upon the veracity of Vision
misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Stevens.
S. PLAINTIFF UNDERWOOD
Plaintiff Chris Underwood (“Plaintiff Underwood”) is a citizen and resident of the
State of Florida.
Vision Solar induced Plaintiff Underwood to purchase a Solar Panel System from
Vision Solar, with financing from Financing Company Sunlight Financial and servicing from
Financing Company Tech CU, after a Vision Solar salesperson visited his home unsolicited.
Underwood to purchase a Solar Panel System by systematically misrepresenting several material
and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including, but not limited to,
representing:
a. That Vision Solar would obtain all necessary permits and Permission to
Operate from local authorities prior to installing the Solar Panel System;
55
b. That Plaintiff Underwood would receive a federal tax credit equal to 26%
of the price of the Solar Panel System, or $18,000, by purchasing a Solar
Panel System from Vision Solar;
c. That Plaintiff Underwood could use a federal tax credit to keep his
payments low without disclosing that Plaintiff Underwood would be
required to make a payment equal to 26% of the purchase price of the
Solar Panel System regardless of whether he received a tax credit;
d. That the Solar Panel System’s performance would cause Plaintiff
Underwood to pay only $20-$30 each month in electricity bills despite
knowing that the Solar Panel System was incapable of such performance;
e. That Vision Solar used licensed contractors to install Solar Panel Systems
and perform other work required for installation; and
f. That, upon request, Vision Solar would remove panels for roof
replacement and cut down trees to maximize energy production, at no cost
to Plaintiff Underwood, despite knowing that Vision Solar would not
perform those tasks.
a. The Solar Panel System was installed by Vision Solar at Plaintiff
Underwood’s residence without Vision Solar obtaining permits or
Permission to Operate, resulting in the Solar Panel System not functioning
at all;
56
b. The Solar Panel System failed to deliver enough power to result in any
savings for Plaintiff Underwood, let alone for him to pay just $20-$30 a
month in electricity bills;
c. Plaintiff Underwood is ineligible for a federal tax credit of 26% or
$18,000;
d. Unlicensed or inadequately licensed contractors were used to install the
Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Underwood’s residence; and
e. Plaintiff Underwood is still required to make a large payment equal to
26% of the price of the Solar Panel System in order to maintain payments
at the current levels.
In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff
Underwood, Vision Solar’s salesperson employed unfair, “high-pressure” tactics to coerce
Plaintiff Underwood into agreeing to purchase and finance a Solar Panel System, including, but
not limited to:
a. Targeting Plaintiff Underwood and other residents in his area due to the
belief they would be vulnerable to influence;
b. Visiting Plaintiff Underwood’s home unannounced;
c. Staying at Plaintiff Underwood’s home beyond the two-hours Plaintiff
Underwood said he had available;
d. Telling Plaintiff Underwood that the offer from Vision Solar and
Financing Company Sunlight Financial was only good if signed the same
day (because the one representative, supposedly a regional manager,
would be away the following day);
57
e. Discouraging Plaintiff Underwood from discussing the contract with his
family or lawyer prior to signing;
f. Presenting the contract on the salesperson’s small mobile device,
preventing Plaintiff Underwood from adequately reading or reviewing the
terms of the agreements; and
g. Refusing to leave Plaintiff Underwood’s home unless and until he signed
the agreements.
Plaintiff Underwood has also suffered damages due to Vision Solar’s shoddy
construction and workmanship, which is the result of Vision Solar using unlicensed or
inadequately licensed contractors to perform work at Plaintiff Underwood’s residence. For
example, Vision Solar’s contractors made holes on Plaintiff Underwood’s roof which have
caused leaks in his roof and damage to his ceiling, assessed as costing approximately $1,800 to
repair.
Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System at Plaintiff Underwood’s residence
without obtaining permits or Permission to Operate, meaning that Vision Solar did not hook up
Plaintiff Underwood’s Solar Panel System to the power grid.
Despite the fact that Plaintiff Underwood’s Solar Panel System was not connected
to the power grid, and despite Financing Company Sunlight Financial’s knowledge of Vision
Solar’s misconduct, Financing Company Sunlight Financial required Plaintiff Underwood to
make payments towards the financing loan.
Vision Solar used the Concierge and Customer Retention departments to ignore
and/or deflect Plaintiff Underwood’s complaints, which induced him to not take further action,
including by:
58
a. Promising reimbursements for payments made to Sunlight Financial
despite having no intention of paying such reimbursements;
b. Blaming Plaintiff Underwood for Vision Solar’s failure to obtain
permitting;
c. Telling Plaintiff Underwood that Vision Solar and the Financing Company
would allow him to cancel the contract despite this being false; and
d. Stating in an interview with a reporter that Vision Solar would allow
Plaintiff Underwood to cancel his contract, only to later say they would
not.
Plaintiff Underwood and other similarly situated homeowners have suffered actual damages,
non-economic harm.
harmed Plaintiff Underwood because Plaintiff Underwood reasonably relied upon the veracity of
foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Underwood.
II. DEFENDANT VISION SOLAR
Defendant Vision Solar, LLC is a solar energy company that installs solar panels
for residential homes.
59
Vision Solar’s principal place of business is located at 511 Route 168,
Blackwood, NJ 08012, and it is registered under the laws of Delaware.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(2)(A) because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of
the proposed Class exceed $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and at least one member
of the Class is a citizen of a State different from Defendant Vision Solar’s.
Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c)
because Defendant Vision Solar transacts business in, is found in, and/or has agents in this
District and because some of the actions giving rise to this complaint took place within this
District.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Vision Solar. Defendant
Vision Solar’s principal place of business is located within this District. Additionally, Defendant
Vision Solar has transacted business, maintained substantial contacts, and/or committed overt
acts in furtherance of the conduct alleged in the Complaint throughout the United States,
including in this District. The conduct was directed at, and has had the effect of, causing injury to
persons residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including in this
District.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
Vision Solar and its partner Financing Companies operate a fraudulent, deceptive,
and unfair scheme designed to induce homeowners into purchasing and/or leasing residential
solar photovoltaic systems (previously defined as “Solar Panel Systems”) and to lock them into
predatory financing agreements.
60
Vision Solar’s and the Financing Companies’ motivations are simple: they all
profit from each Solar Panel System sold or leased by Vision Solar. Vision Solar receives 100%
of the contract price from its partner Financing Companies even without proof the Solar Panel
Systems are functioning, permitted, or hooked up to the power grid. And Financing Companies
profit via fees charged to consumers to whom they make loans and to third-party investors who
buy packaged and securitized solar asset-backed securities from Financing Companies.
Financing Companies enable Vision Solar’s conduct by providing financing for
Vision Solar’s sales. Most homeowners require Financing Companies’ financing because the
typical price of a Solar Panel System is anywhere from $10,000 to $60,000, a cost the vast
majority of them cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket.
Financing Companies’ agreements typically carry 20-to-25-year terms and add
substantial interest to the overall purchase price of Vision Solar’s Solar Panel Systems.
Financing Companies thus profit by adding thousands of dollars in fees and
interest to the purchase price or lease payment amounts.
Unlike traditional banks that finance their loans with deposits and therefore have
an incentive to ensure that borrowers are able to make the payments on their loans, Financing
Companies are backed largely by investors, including private equity funds, who buy packages of
loans called solar asset-backed securities.
Because Financing Companies make money both by charging borrowers fees and
by bundling and selling loans to investors, any incentive to ensure that the origination of the
loans is free of fraud or deception, factors which might hinder repayment, is outweighed by the
incentive to simply finalize as many solar asset-backed loans as possible for third parties.
61
Financing Companies are well aware that Vision Solar installs nonperforming
Solar Panel Systems without obtaining permits or Permission to Operate because they have
received hundreds if not thousands of complaints from individuals—including complaints from
each of the 18 representative Plaintiffs bringing this action—who are being forced to pay for
Solar Panel Systems that are not hooked up to the power grid or are otherwise substantially not
functioning.
The ethical and lawful response to these complaints would be to rescind the
financing transactions and sever the business relationship with Vision Solar. Instead, Financing
Companies typically respond to these complaints by threatening Vision Solar’s victims with
legal action or negative credit consequences, which typically coerces Vision Solar’s victims to
pay for an often-non-functioning product.
If that fails, Financing Companies engage in tactics designed to conceal Vision
Solar’s conduct. For example (and as detailed below), Financing Companies Sunlight Financial
and Dividend Finance have both permitted Vision Solar to make payments on behalf of victims
who have complained that the Financing Companies are requiring payment for Solar Panel
Systems that Vision Solar has not hooked up to the power grid. These acts are designed to
actively conceal Vision Solar’s conduct from the third-party investors who have purchased loans
from Financing Companies, lest these investors discover that they bought loans originated
through fraud, deception, and unfair tactics.
Alternatively, Financing Companies instruct victims to make the payments but
“require” Vision Solar to promise to reimburse the victims for these payments. In reality, the
promised reimbursements are rarely, if ever, paid.
62
In select instances, if the victims persist with their complaints or threaten to
involve law enforcement, Financing Companies have allowed temporary deferments of payments
for non-performance – an acknowledgement that Vision Solar does not perform as promised.
Financing Companies conceal Vision Solar’s conduct for multiple reasons,
including:
(1) to keep consumers on the hook going forward if Vision Solar ever does obtain
Permission to Operate;
(2) to conceal Vision Solar’s conduct from the general public (lest Vision Solar be
shut down by law enforcement) in order to continue the supply of loan
originations; and
(3) to conceal from third-party investors who bought solar asset-backed securities
from Financing Companies the fact that the loans they purchased were
originated via fraud and are in danger of underperforming.
This scheme leaves homeowners financially responsible for non-functional or un-
permitted Solar Panel Systems and leaves third parties with solar asset-backed securities full of
fraudulently and deceptively originated loans.
I. VISION SOLAR ENGAGED IN FALSE, DECEPTIVE, AND UNFAIR

MARKETING AND/OR SALES TACTICS THAT INDUCED CONSUMERS TO
SIGN CONTRACTS THEY OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO.
To sell as many Solar Panel Systems as possible, Vision Solar developed a script
and trained its salespeople to utilize a core set of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and pressure
tactics designed to induce homeowners into signing sales and financing agreements for Solar
Panel Systems.
63
As an initial matter, Vision Solar salespeople often purposefully targeted groups
of homeowners they believed would be particularly susceptible to these tactics, including
individuals with low incomes as well as elderly and disabled individuals.
Vision Solar often showed up at homes unannounced to make sales pitches and
then refused to leave when asked.
Once in a home, Vision Solar salespeople engaged in a pattern of core
misrepresentations, including:
a. Misrepresenting the implications of a consumer’s signature, such as
claiming it was only for “preapproval” or, alternatively, falsely stating that
a contract had already been established prior to signature;
b. Running a hard credit check without consent and then using the negative
credit consequences of the hard credit check to induce a consumer to
purchase a Solar Panel System;
c. Misrepresenting that Vision Solar had obtained necessary permits and
authorization, or would do so prior to installation, when in fact, the Solar
Panel Systems were not authorized and would not be authorized prior to
installation;
d. Misrepresenting homeowner’s eligibility for a federal tax credit for as
much as 26% of the cost of the Solar Panel System to offset the cost of the
Solar Panel Systems;
e. Misrepresenting the terms of the financing agreements, including
purposefully concealing that if homeowners did not make a payment equal
64
to 26% of the contract price to pay down the loan principal within 18
months, their payments would increase substantially;
f. Misrepresenting the performance of Vision Solar’s Solar Panel Systems,
such as claiming the Solar Panel Systems would “pay for themselves” by
producing enough energy to more than offset loan or lease payments; and
g. Misrepresenting that Vision Solar’s contractors were adequately licensed
to perform the work necessary to install Solar Panel Systems.
In addition to relying on the above core misrepresentations, Vision Solar’s
salespeople employed unfair tactics designed to overcome consumers’ resistance, such as:
a. Deliberately targeting populations Vision Solar believed would be
vulnerable to undue influence, such as low-income areas and retirement
communities;
b. Staying in consumers’ homes beyond the period they were welcome, only
agreeing to leave if a consumer signed a sales and financing agreement;
c. Discouraging consumers from seeking legal advice before signing
agreements;
d. Presenting contracts or documents for electronic signature on a
salesperson’s mobile phone or tablet, depriving consumers of the
opportunity to adequately review the terms of the agreements; and
e. Delaying the provision of a copy of the signed agreements to consumers
until after the recission period passed, depriving homeowners of the ability
to exercise their rights of cancellation.
The Connecticut Attorney General described Vision Solar’s conduct as follows:
65
We’re investigating numerous complaints regarding high-pressure solar industry sales

tactics, but Vision Solar’s predatory practices are far and away the worst we have seen.
Vision Solar preyed on low-income, elderly, and disabled homeowners, pressuring them
into unaffordable loans for solar panels that in some cases were never activated. Their
egregious misconduct appears to have violated multiple laws, and we’re going to hold
them accountable. Our lawsuit seeks to get money back for Vision customers, as well as
fines and court orders to stop Vision from engaging in these unfair and deceptive
practices.
Several Florida news stations have conducted investigations or run stories on the
tactics employed by Vision Solar. For example, an investigation by Tampa-based ABC News
affiliate WFTS uncovered that there have been over 70 complaints filed with the Florida
Attorney General’s Office and recounted that:
Tampa retiree Eula Gutierrez and her husband signed up for a $53,000 investment that
came with a 25-year payment plan. Gutierrez told the I-Team that the saleswoman
convinced her the savings on her power bill would help offset the monthly loan payment
of $169.
“She said, but look, you're going to be saving from here to no telling when. You're going
to be saving every month because your electric bill will be so small,” Gutierrez recalled.
Gutierrez said the installers damaged her roof, which caused a leak in her bathroom while
putting on the panels last summer, and they never connected her system to the grid. For
the last seven months, the panels have sat on her roof without generating a single watt of
electricity. 2
Attempting to downplay its conduct, Vision Solar admitted it had “made
mistakes” and had rapidly installed Solar Panel Systems without obtaining permits:
As far as permits and installing jobs without them. We own our past. As we were
growing rapidly in your area, we had a problem with our CRM system and for a period of
time were installing without permits without knowledge as the system suggested
complete and approved. We have since fixed that problem, have worked with local
municipalities and paid associated fines. I am incredibly confident in our current team
and systems/processes where these types of errors will not occur again. 3
2
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/more-than-70-complaints-against-vision-
solar-prompt-consumer-investigation
3
Id.
66
Similarly, an investigative team from a South Florida CBS News affiliate
recounted the story of Estela Padilla, a Boca Raton homeowner who “took out a $40,000 loan to
finance the panels, and is paying $122 toward the loan each month” but found that “[a] year and
a half later, she is still paying for the panels but hasn’t seen any savings on her energy bill.
That’s because her panels were never activated or connected to the power grid.” 4
Another Florida news station, Local News 10 of Broward County, Florida,
recounted the story of Tracy Walters, who paid Vision Solar a $21,000 deposit only to have
Vision Solar disappear for over a year, causing her to have “tears on phone calls” due to
frustration. 5
Similarly, WFTV 9, an Orlando TV station told the story of a man who was
promised that the Solar Panel System installed by Vision Solar would save him $200 a month.
Instead, the system delivers on just 6% of the power his family needs, and he has been saddled
with over $50,000 in debt to the Financing Companies. 6
A. VISION SOLAR MISREPRESENTED SOLAR PANEL SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE
As detailed by Plaintiffs, the Connecticut Attorney General, and the investigative
teams of multiple television stations, Vision Solar consistently made misrepresentations
regarding the performance of the Solar Panel Systems that Vision Solar sold.
Vision Solar developed a training regime and script for its salespeople, whereby
they are instructed to engage in fraudulent, unfair, and deceptive tactics, including
misrepresenting the performance of the Solar Panel Systems.
4
https://cbs12.com/news/local/i-team-vision-solar-panels-permits-south-florida-deerfield-beach-scam-1-31-2023
5
https://www.local10.com/news/local/2022/12/09/woman-pays-21k-deposit-for-roof-solar-panels-but-12-months-
later-has-nothing/
6
https://www.wftv.com/news/action9/thats-not-good-homeowners-feel-burned-by-solar-power-
promises/OWPN5EJBP5CDBHJH3YP32JYSLM/
67
Specifically, Vision Solar’s salespeople systematically misrepresent the output the
Solar Panel Systems are capable of, which induces consumers into believing the systems “pay
for themselves.”
Rather than “pay for themselves”, as Vision Solar salespeople consistently
represent, the Solar Panel Systems consistently fail to provide enough electricity to offset their
costs, leaving consumers on the hook for more money than they otherwise would have had to
pay had they never installed Solar Panel Systems.
Financing Companies are and have been aware of Vision Solar’s
misrepresentations regarding the Solar Panel Systems’ performance because they have received
hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints from customers whose Solar Panel Systems are not
functioning as promised.
Despite knowing that Vision Solar is fraudulently, deceptively, and unfairly
mispresenting the Solar Panel Systems they are selling, Financing Companies continue to enable
Vision Solar’s behavior by providing financing for Vision Solar.
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes would not have purchased Solar Panel
Systems from Vision Solar had they known the truth regarding the Solar Panel Systems’
performance.
B. VISION SOLAR MISREPRESENTED HOMEOWNERS’ ELIGIBILITY

FOR TAX CREDITS
Vision Solar knowingly misrepresented homeowners’ eligibility for federal and
state tax credits to induce them into Solar Panel System financing agreements.
Most Vision Solar customers, including Plaintiffs, do not qualify for the tax credit
or do not have the requisite taxable income to receive a tax credit equal to 26% of the price of a
Solar Panel System.
68
Vision Solar knows this yet instructs all of its salespeople to target, and they do
target, populations with low incomes and thus little to ability to claim a tax credit.
Vision Solar further preys upon homeowners’ lack of tax knowledge and
sophistication by misrepresenting homeowners’ eligibility for such credits, which fraudulently,
deceptively, and unfairly induce them into purchasing Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar.
Had Plaintiffs known Vision Solar’s representations were false, Plaintiffs and
members of the Class would not have agreed to purchase Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar.
Some examples of Vision Solar’s misrepresentations include:
a. Vision Solar told Plaintiff Cuenca she would receive a check for $10,000
as a federal tax credit for purchasing a Solar Panel System;
b. Vision Solar told Plaintiff Donahue she would automatically be eligible
for a large federal tax credit for purchasing a Solar Panel System;
c. Vision Solar told Plaintiff McClelland he would receive a federal tax
credit of $8,600 and a payment from the State of New Jersey of $54 per
month for purchasing a Solar Panel System;
d. Vision Solar told Plaintiff Noralus she would receive a federal tax credit
equal to thousands of dollars;
e. Vision Solar told Plaintiff Schmidt he would receive a federal tax credit
for that year of $9,000;
f. Vision Solar told Plaintiff Underwood he would receive 26% of his loan,
or $18,000, in tax credits; and
g. Vision Solar told Plaintiff Fahey that he would receive a federal tax credit
of over $10,000 for purchasing a Solar Panel System.
69
Financing Companies reinforced Vision Solar’s fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
misrepresentations regarding tax credit eligibility in the way they structured loans and leases.
Financing Companies’ loans and leases began with an introductory monthly
payment amount that remained stable for 18 months. After 18 months, however, Plaintiffs and
members of the Classes were expected to make a large payment to the principal of the loan equal
to 26% of the purchase price, the same percentage of the purchase price Vision Solar had told
homeowners they would receive in the form of a federal tax credit.
If Plaintiffs and members of the Classes did not make this payment, their monthly
payments to Financing Companies would go up substantially.
Despite Vision Solar’s representations, Plaintiffs have not received a federal tax
credit equal to 26% for the purchase of a Solar Panel System from Vision Solar.
Had Plaintiffs and members of the Classes known the truth regarding their
ineligibility for a federal tax credit, they would not have agreed to purchase Solar Panel Systems
from Vision Solar and would not have entered into Solar Panel System financing agreements
with Financing Companies.
C. VISION SOLAR MISREPRESENTED THE STATUS OF PERMITS AND

PERMISSION TO OPERATE.
Vision Solar misrepresented to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes that Solar
Panel Systems would not be installed until after Vision Solar obtained the required federal, state,
and local permits required, including UCC filings and (for New Jersey) NJ Clean Energy
Program filings, and that homeowners would not be responsible for payments until after the
Solar Panel System had passed inspection and had obtained “Permission to Operate” or “PTO”.
For example, Plaintiff Donahue asked Vision Solar representatives if prior to the
installation they had obtained the permits to install a Solar Panel System at her residence and was
70
told that they had. In reality, the panels were installed but never activated for over a year due to,
among other things, lack of permitting and failed inspections.
Vision Solar made similar, misrepresentations regarding obtaining Permission to
Operate to Plaintiff Bascetta, Plaintiff Cuenca, Plaintiff Fahey, Plaintiff Froment, Plaintiff
Noralus, Plaintiff Pagano, the Perez Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Rorris, Plaintiff Stevens, and Plaintiff
Underwood.
Vision Solar installed Solar Panel Systems at the residences of Plaintiff Bascetta,
Plaintiff Cuenca, Plaintiff Donahue, Plaintiff Fahey, Plaintiff Froment, Plaintiff Noralus,
Plaintiff Pagano, the Perez Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Rorris, Plaintiff Stevens, and Plaintiff Underwood
without obtaining Permission to Operate, and sent photos of the non-functioning installation to
Financing Companies.
Financing Companies paid Vision Solar the outstanding balance of the purchase
price after receiving photos of the Solar Panel System installation at the residences of Plaintiff
Bascetta, Plaintiff Buskey, Plaintiff Cuenca, Plaintiff Donahue, Plaintiff Fahey, Plaintiff
Froment, Plaintiff Henderson, the Lupien Plaintiffs, Plaintiff McClelland, Plaintiff Noralus,
Plaintiff Pagano, the Perez Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Quantz, Plaintiff Rorris, the Schmidt Plaintiffs,
Plaintiff Stevens, and Plaintiff Underwood despite knowing that it was likely that Vision Solar
had not obtained PTO.
Financing Companies took insufficient steps to verify that the Solar Panel
Systems installed at the residences of Plaintiff Bascetta, Plaintiff Buskey, Plaintiff Cuenca,
Plaintiff Donahue, Plaintiff Fahey, Plaintiff Froment, Plaintiff Hastreiter, Plaintiff Henderson,
the Lupien Plaintiffs, Plaintiff McClelland, Plaintiff Noralus, Plaintiff Pagano, the Perez
Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Quantz, Plaintiff Rorris, Plaintiff Schmidt, and Plaintiff Underwood were
71
functioning, yet began requiring the repayment of the loans and leases from these Plaintiffs or
from Vision Solar itself before the panels were activated.
Afraid of legal action threatened by Financing Companies and/or the negative
impact to their credit that could result from nonpayment, many Plaintiffs and members of the
Classes paid thousands of dollars to Financing Companies while their Solar Panel Systems were
not functioning due to a lack of Permission to Operate.
II. FINANCING COMPANIES KNOW OF, ENABLE, SUPPORT, AND CONCEAL

VISION SOLAR’S CONDUCT
Financing Companies know Vision Solar is coercively, fraudulently, deceptively,
and unfairly inducing customers into Solar Panel System financing agreements yet continue to
provide financing to Vision Solar because Financing Companies (1) need the loan inventory to
package and sell to third-party investors; and (2) know they can coerce payment with threats of
legal action and negative credit consequences.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of customers have contacted Financing Companies
expressing their grievances about being forced to pay for Solar Panel System that were either (1)
not functioning as promised, or (2) not even connected to the power grid because Vision Solar
never obtained Permission to Operate.
Despite being informed of these concerns and the fraudulent nature of Vision
Solar’s sales tactics, Financing Companies, for their own financial advancement, have continued
to provide financing for Vision Solar.
Further, Financing Companies have taken steps to actively conceal Vision Solar’s
conduct from the public, and most importantly, from the third-party investors to which Financing
Companies sell solar asset backed securities, lest they know they are buying bundles of
fraudulently induced loans.
72
For example, to prevent outside knowledge about the non-functioning of Solar
Panel Systems, Financing Companies have occasionally granted deferments to customers who
complained about having non-functioning Solar Panel Systems that were installed without
Permission to Operate on the basis that the homeowners’ Solar Panel Systems have not been
hooked up to the power grid.
As detailed below, Financing Companies also allowed Vision Solar to make
payments to Financing Companies on behalf of customers whose Solar Panel Systems have not
actually been connected to the power grid.
In other instances, Financing Companies have taken position that Vision Solar
would be responsible for reimbursing customers who had made payments prior to Vision Solar
obtaining Permission to Operate, though Vision Solar rarely, if ever, reimbursed such customers.
Financing Companies engage in these actions, and others, to avoid at any cost
recognition of the non-performance of loans that they had packaged and sold to third-party
investors attributable to deceit and/or fraud on the part of one of Financing Companies’ most
prolific Solar Panel System financing originators: Vision Solar.
Recognition of the non-performance would not just have objectively reduced the
value of the solar asset-backed securities sold by Financing Companies but also would have
subjected them to liability for making misrepresentations regarding the likelihood of
performance of the loans they were packaging and selling.
73
III. PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT
SOLAR PANEL SYSTEMS ABSENT DEFENDANT VISION SOLAR’S
MISREPRESENATIONS
Each and every contract signed by Plaintiffs and members of the Classes was void
ab initio because of the conduct described above: there was no meeting of the minds, a
fundamental principle of contract formation.
Vision Solar’s misrepresentations and omissions were material to the Plaintiffs’
and members of the Classes’ decisions to purchase Solar Panels Systems and obtain financing
because they directly influenced the Plaintiffs’ and members of the Classes’ understanding of the
costs, benefits, and financing terms associated with the Solar Panel Systems.
Indeed, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes would not have agreed to purchase
Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar or enter into financing transactions with the Financing
Companies had Plaintiffs and members of the Classes known the truth regarding the
representations and omissions made by Vision Solar.
Vision Solar’s misrepresentations regarding the federal tax credits associated with
the purchase or lease of Solar Panel Systems caused Plaintiffs to believe that they would receive
a significant financial benefit from Solar Panel System and that it was a sound investment for the
future. The promise of tax credits was a crucial factor in Plaintiffs’ decision-making process,
creating an expectation of substantial savings that would offset the initial costs of the solar panel
installation.
Vision Solar’s sales representatives made false claims that the Solar Panel
Systems would result in significant savings by reducing the amount of power used from the
homeowner’s current power company. This promise portrayed the purchase of a Solar Panel
74
System as an investment which would “pay for itself” over time and was material to Plaintiffs’
and members of the Classes’ decisions to purchase Solar Panel Systems.
Vision Solar’s misrepresentations regarding the permitting process, including
assuring homeowners that Vision Solar would only install panels after obtaining the proper
permits to connect them to the power grid, were crucial for Plaintiffs’ and members of the
Classes’ confidence in the legality and functionality of the Solar Panel System installations.
Plaintiffs would not have agreed to purchase Solar Panel Systems had they known they would be
required to pay for a non-functioning and/or unpermitted system for months or years.
These material misrepresentations were significant for Plaintiffs’ decisions to
purchase or lease Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar. Had Plaintiffs and members of the
Classes been aware of the truth regarding the Solar Panel Systems, Vision Solar’s practices, and
the terms of the financing agreements, Plaintiffs would not have purchased Solar Panel Systems.
The fraudulent, deceitful, and unfair practices employed by Vision Solar induced Plaintiffs into
purchasing Solar Panel Systems via financing agreements, yet the Solar Panel Systems did not
function at all, or as promised, causing Plaintiffs and members of the Classes suffer significant
financial losses and damages.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The proposed Class is
defined as follows:
All homeowners in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

and Pennsylvania who purchased Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar and
entered into agreements with Financing Companies to finance the purchase or
lease of the Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar, or purchased directly from
Vision Solar, during the applicable statute of limitations period.
75
ARIZONA SUBCLASS
Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following “Arizona Subclass,” defined as:
All homeowners in Arizona who purchased Solar Panel Systems from Vision
Solar and entered into agreements with Financing Companies to finance the
purchase or lease of the Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar, or purchased
directly from Vision Solar, during the applicable statute of limitations period.
CONNECTICUT SUBCLASS
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following “Connecticut Subclass,” defined as:
All homeowners in Connecticut who purchased Solar Panel Systems from Vision
FLORIDA SUBCLASS
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following “Florida Subclass,” defined as:
All homeowners in Florida who purchased Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar
and entered into agreements with Financing Companies to finance the purchase or
lease of the Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar, or purchased directly from
Vision Solar, during the applicable statute of limitations period.
MASSACHUSETTS SUBCLASS
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following “Massachusetts Subclass,” defined as:
All homeowners in Massachusetts who purchased Solar Panel Systems from

Vision Solar and entered into agreements with Financing Companies to finance
the purchase or lease of the Solar Panel Systems from Vision Solar, or purchased
NEW JERSEY SUBCLASS
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following “New Jersey Subclass,” defined as:
76
All homeowners in New Jersey who purchased Solar Panel Systems from Vision
PENNSYLVANIA SUBCLASS
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following “Pennsylvania Subclass,” defined as:
All homeowners in Pennsylvania who purchased solar photovoltaic systems Solar

Panel Systems from Vision Solar and entered into agreements with Financing
Companies to finance the purchase or lease of the Solar Panel Systems from
Vision Solar, or purchased directly from Vision Solar, during the applicable
statute of limitations period.
Collectively, the Class, the Arizona Subclass, the Connecticut Subclass, the
Florida Subclass, the Massachusetts Subclass, the New Jersey Subclass, and the Pennsylvania
Subclass are referred to as “the Classes.”
Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or refine the definitions of the Classes based
upon discovery of new information and to accommodate any of the Court’s manageability
concerns.
Excluded from the Classes are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over
this action and members of their staff, as well as members of their families; (b) Defendant and
Defendant’s predecessors, parents, successors, heirs, assigns, subsidiaries, and any entity in
which any Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, as well as Defendant’s current or
former employees, agents, officers, and directors; (c) persons who properly execute and file a
timely request for exclusion from the Classes; (d) persons whose claims in this matter have been
finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (e) counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant;
and (f) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.
77
Ascertainability. The proposed Classes are readily ascertainable because they are
defined using objective criteria so as to allow class members to determine if they are part of the
Classes. Further, the Classes can be readily identified through records maintained by Defendant
Vision Solar.
Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1)). The Classes are so numerous that joinder of
individual members herein is impracticable. The exact number of members of the Classes, as
herein identified and described, is not known, but upon information and belief there are
thousands of individuals and entities that purchased Solar Panel Systems from Defendant Vision
Solar.
Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2)). Common questions of fact and law exist for each
cause of action and predominate over questions affecting only individuals, including:
a. Whether Vision Solar engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive scheme to induce
homeowners to enter into Solar Panel System financing agreements;
b. Whether Vision Solar systematically misrepresented the benefits, eligibility for
tax credits, and financial terms of the loans and leasing transactions;
c. Whether Vision Solar’s conduct constitutes fraud, deceit, or unfairness;
d. Whether Vision Solar salespeople were trained to use fraudulent, deceptive,
unfair, and misleading tactics;
e. Whether Vision Solar failed to ensure proper permitting and installation of Solar
Panel Systems;
f. Whether Vision Solar’s Concierge Service and Customer Retention departments
used unfair and deceptive tactics to prevent customers from canceling their
contracts;
78
g. Whether Vision Solar violated federal and state law;
h. Whether Vision Solar targeted vulnerable individuals and engaged in
unauthorized practices, such as running unauthorized credit checks and forging
signatures on contracts;
i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members suffered damages as a result of the
misconduct alleged herein;
j. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3)). Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other
members of the proposed Classes. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes suffered injuries as a
result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct that is uniform across the Classes.
Adequacy (Rule 23(a)(4)). Plaintiffs have and will continue to fairly and
adequately represent and protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiffs have retained counsel
competent and experienced in complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiffs have no interest that
is antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the
members of the Classes, and they have the resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs’
counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of the Classes.
Substantial Benefits. This class action is appropriate for certification because
class proceedings are superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
this controversy and joinder of all members of the Classes is impracticable. The prosecution of
separate actions by individual members of the Classes would impose heavy burdens upon the
Courts and Defendant, would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications of the
79
questions of law and fact common to members of the Classes, and would be dispositive of the
interests of the other members not party to the individual adjudications or would substantially
impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. This proposed class action presents fewer
management difficulties than individual litigation and provides the benefits of single
adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Class
treatment will create economies of time, effort, and expense and promote uniform decision-
making.
Class certification, therefore, is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
because the above common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting
individual members of the Classes, and a class action is superior to other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
Classes certification is also appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because
Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate as to the Class as a whole.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the foregoing class allegations and definitions
based on facts learned and legal developments following additional investigation, discovery, or
otherwise.
80
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes)
Plaintiffs and the Class Members re-allege and incorporate here the allegations set
forth above.
As set forth above, Defendant Vision Solar made numerous false representations
of material and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements, including about the
costs, benefits, and financing terms associated with the Solar Panel Systems, that Vision Solar
knew were false at the time and were likely to induce Plaintiffs and members of the Classes into
signing agreements to purchase and finance Solar Panel Systems.
Vision Solar made misrepresentations that include, but are not limited to: (1)
falsely promising tax credits which Vision Solar knew homeowners were ineligible for; (2)
falsely claiming that the Solar Panel Systems will provide so much savings that they will “pay
for themselves”; (3) falsely assuring homeowners that proper permitting will be obtained for
installation; and (4) falsely suggesting to homeowners that they will have functioning and
legally-permitted solar systems.
Vision Solar made these representations to induce Plaintiffs into taking actions to
their detriment, including but not limited to:
a. entering into onerous and one-sided agreements to finance the purchase or
lease of residential solar systems;
b. incurring obligations and/or making payments on contracts for Solar Panel
Systems that were not functioning and/or for which Vision Solar did not
obtain proper permits;
81
c. incurring obligations and/or making payments on contracts that were
above the amounts which Vision Solar represented Plaintiffs would need
to pay; and
d. allowing Vision Solar to make alterations and construction on Plaintiffs’
homes which would not result in functioning solar systems and inducing
Plaintiffs to rely on such alterations and construction, including by making
it financially onerous to turn back and not utilize solar panels and/or to use
another solar panel company.
As part of Vision Solar’s efforts to fraudulently induce Plaintiffs, Vision Solar
employed fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair sales tactics as well as targeted vulnerable
homeowners such as individuals with low incomes, the elderly, and those with cognitive
impairments, including by:
a. initiating multiple unsolicited “cold” calls to set up in-home presentations
for solar contracts;
b. conducting in-home visits and in some cases remaining for several hours
or despite being asked to leave;
c. misrepresenting the implications of a consumer’s signature, such as
claiming it was only for “preapproval”, falsely stating that a contract had
already been established, or running a hard credit check without
authorization;
d. misrepresenting the performance of Vision Solar’s Solar Panel Systems,
such as claiming the Solar Panel Systems would “pay for themselves” by
producing enough energy to more than offset loan or lease payments;
82
e. misrepresenting that Vision Solar was authorized to install Solar Panel
Systems and connect them to the power grid when they were not;
f. urging consumers to agree to solar installations on the same day as the
initial in-home solicitation;
g. discouraging consumers from seeking legal advice before signing
agreements;
h. conducting in-home sales pitches to individuals who, due to cognitive or
language barriers, were unable to make informed decisions;
i. presenting contracts or documents for electronic signature on a
salesperson’s mobile device, making it difficult for consumers to
sufficiently read and assess the documents beforehand; and
j. delaying the furnishing of signed contract copies to consumers until
several days or weeks later to deprive homeowners the ability to cancel or
rescind the contract.
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes took actions to their detriment in reliance
on Vision Solar’s representations, including, inter alia, by entering into contracts with Vision
Solar and the Financing Companies, making payments to Vision Solar and the Financing
Companies, forgoing opportunities with other solar companies, and allowing Vision Solar to
initiate construction and alterations on their homes.
83
COUNT II
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes)
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set
forth herein.
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes conferred substantial benefits on Defendant
Vision Solar and the Financing Companies via their purchases of Solar Panel Systems from
Vision Solar and financing agreements with the Financing Companies, and Vision Solar
knowingly and willingly accepted and enjoyed these benefits.
Vision Solar either knew or should have known that the payments rendered by
Plaintiff and members of the Classes were made with the expectation that the Solar Panel
Systems would have the qualities, characteristics, and suitability for use represented and
warranted by Vision Solar, and that Vision Solar would act in accordance with the
representations made to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes.
Vision Solar’s acceptance and retention of these benefits under the circumstances
alleged herein make it inequitable for Vision Solar to retain the benefits without payment of the
value to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes.
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to recover from Vision Solar all
amounts wrongfully collected and improperly retained by Vision Solar, plus interest thereon.
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes seek actual damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorney’s fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available under the
laws.
84
COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF ARIZONA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
A.R.S. § 44-1521, et seq.
(On behalf of the Schmidt Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Arizona Subclass
Members)
The Schmidt Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
The Schmidt Plaintiffs and Defendant Vision Solar are each a “person” as defined
by A.R.S. § 44-1521(6).
The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ACFA), A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq., declares
that “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of
any trade or commerce are unlawful.”
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1524, any person who has suffered a loss as a result of a
violation of the ACFA may bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or
practice violates the ACFA and to enjoin such person who has violated, is violating, or is
otherwise likely to violate the ACFA.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1524, any person who has suffered a loss as a result of a
violation of the ACFA may bring an action for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.
Vision Solar engaged in deceptive and unfair acts and practices,
misrepresentation, and the concealment, suppression, and omission of material and foundational
aspects of the sales and financing agreements affecting the Schmidt Plaintiffs and Arizona Class
members in connection with the sale and advertisement of “merchandise” (as defined by A.R.S.
§ 44-1521(5)) in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1522(A).
85
Vision Solar, through its conduct as described above, engaged in unfair methods
of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade and commerce,
including, but not limited to:
a. Systematically misrepresenting the benefits of Solar Panel Systems,
eligibility for tax credits, and the financial terms of the loans and leasing
transactions;
b. Training and permitting salespeople to use fraudulent, deceptive, unfair,
and misleading tactics to induce homeowners to enter into financing
agreements;
c. Targeting vulnerable individuals and employing tactics such as
unauthorized credit checks;
d. Failing to ensure proper installation, permits, and functionality of the Solar
Panel Systems;
e. Providing false promises and using deceptive tactics to retain customers
and prevent cancellations;
f. Collecting financing payments from homeowners before their Solar Panel
Systems were connected to the power grid; and
g. Ignoring homeowner complaints and continuing to undertake, finance, and
support Vision Solar’s fraudulent practices.
Vision Solar’s unfair and deceptive acts and practices as described above have
caused the Schmidt Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Arizona homeowners to suffer losses
of money and property, including, but not limited to, payments made and obligations incurred for
86
non-functioning Solar Panel Systems, loss of eligibility for tax credits, and diminished property
value due to improperly installed Solar Panel Systems.
As a direct and proximate result of Vision Solar’s unfair and deceptive acts and
practices, the Schmidt Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Arizona homeowners have suffered
damages and are entitled to relief under ACFA, including, but not limited to, actual damages,
attorney’s fees, and costs.
The Schmidt Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
thus seek (a) a declaration that Vision Solar’s acts and practices as described above violate the
Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1521, et seq.; (b) an award of actual damages; (c) an
award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1534; (d) an order enjoining Vision
Solar from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive acts and practices described above;
(e) restitution and disgorgement of profits; (f) an order for the recission of the sales and financing
agreements as well as compensatory damages; and (g) any further relief the Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT IV
VIOLATIONS OF CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110b, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Bascetta and all similarly situated Connecticut Subclass Members)
Plaintiff Bascetta incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein.
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-
110a, et seq., declares that “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”
Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a), any person who has suffered a loss as
a result of a violation of CUTPA may bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act
87
or practice violates CUTPA and to enjoin such person who has violated, is violating, or is
otherwise likely to violate CUTPA.
Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a), any person who has suffered a loss as
a result of a violation of CUTPA may bring an action for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and
court costs.
Defendant Vision Solar, through its conduct as described above, engaged in unfair
methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of their trade and
commerce, including, but not limited to:
transactions;
b. Training and allowing salespeople to use fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, and
misleading tactics to induce homeowners to enter into financing
agreements;
unauthorized credit checks and forging signatures on contracts;
Panel Systems;
f. Causing collection of financing payments from homeowners before their
Solar Panel Systems were connected to the power grid; and
88
Vision Solar also violated Conn. Gen. State § 42-110b by violating the
Connecticut Home Improvement Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ch. 400. Specifically, Vision Solar:
a. Commenced work without obtaining the applicable building or
construction permits as required, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-
427(i); and
b. Failed to provide and deliver to homeowners a completed copy of home
improvement contracts at the time such contracts were executed, in
violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-429.
Vision Solar’s conduct as described above violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b by
violating Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-334 and 20-341(d) including by Vision Solar applying for local
electrical permits without having an appropriately licensed electrical contractor sign, or authorize
the signing of, such applications.
Vision Solar violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-338b and 20-341(d) by engaging in,
practicing, and offering to perform work requiring an electrical license pursuant to Conn. Gen.
Stat. Ch. 393 without having an appropriately licensed electrical contractor.
caused Plaintiff Bascetta and other similarly situated Connecticut homeowners to suffer losses of
money and property, including, but not limited to, payments made and obligations incurred for
non-functioning Solar Panel Systems, loss of eligibility for tax credits, and diminished property
value due to improperly installed Solar Panel Systems.
89
practices, Plaintiff Bascetta and other similarly situated Connecticut homeowners have suffered
damages and are entitled to relief under CUTPA, including, but not limited to, actual damages,
attorney’s fees, and costs.
Vision Solar knew, or should have known, that its conduct was unfair or
deceptive in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b, and as a consequence, Vision Solar is
subject to civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-
110o(b).
Plaintiff Bascetta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, thus
seeks (a) a declaration that Vision Solar’s acts and practices as described above violate the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a, et seq.; (b) an award of
actual damages; (c) an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-
110g(d); (d) an order enjoining Vision Solar from continuing to engage in the unfair and
deceptive acts and practices described above; (e) an order for the recission of the sales and
financing agreements as well as compensatory damages; and (f) any further relief the Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Cuenca, Plaintiff Disla, Plaintiff Donahue, Plaintiff Hastreiter,
Plaintiff Noralus, Plaintiff Quantz, Plaintiff Rorris, Plaintiff Stevens, Plaintiff Underwood,
the Perez Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated Florida Subclass Members)
Plaintiff Cuenca, Plaintiff Disla, Plaintiff Donahue, Plaintiff Hastreiter, Plaintiff
Noralus, Plaintiff Quantz, Plaintiff Rorris, Plaintiff Stevens, Plaintiff Underwood, and the Perez
Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Florida Plaintiffs”), incorporate by reference all preceding
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
90
The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. §
501.201, et seq., provides that “unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices,
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.211(1), anyone aggrieved by a violation of FDUTPA
may bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates FDUTPA
and to enjoin such person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate
FDUTPA.
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2), any person who has suffered a loss as a result
of a violation of FDUTPA may bring an action for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and court
costs.
Defendant Vision Solar through its conduct as described above, engaged in unfair
methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of their trade and commerce, including, but not limited to:
transactions;
agreements;
Panel Systems;
91
Solar Panel Systems are connected to the power grid; and
caused Florida Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Florida homeowners to suffer losses of
money and property, including, but not limited to, payments made for non-functioning Solar
Panel Systems, loss of eligibility for tax credits, and diminished property value due to improperly
installed Solar Panel Systems.
practices, Florida Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Florida homeowners have been aggrieved
by Vision Solar’s conduct, have suffered damages, and are entitled to relief under FDUTPA,
including, but not limited to, actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Plaintiff Cuenca, Plaintiff Disla, Plaintiff Donahue, Plaintiff Hastreiter, Plaintiff
Noralus, Plaintiff Quantz, Plaintiff Rorris, Plaintiff Stevens, Plaintiff Underwood, and the Perez
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, thus seek (a) a declaration
that Vision Solar’s acts and practices as described above violate the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.; (b) an award of actual damages; (c) an
award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.2105; (d) an order enjoining
Vision Solar from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive acts and practices described
92
above; (e) an order for the recission of the sales and financing agreements as well as
compensatory damages; and (f) any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAW CH. 93A
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 93A, §§ 1, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Froment, the Lupien Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated
Massachusetts Subclass Members)
Plaintiff Froment and the Lupien Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding
Plaintiff Froment and the Lupien Plaintiffs intend to assert and prosecute claims
under M.G.L. ch. 93A § 1 et seq. (“MCPL”) against Defendant Vision Solar. Plaintiff Froment
and the Lupien Plaintiffs have provided Vision Solar notice in accordance with M.G.L. ch. 93A
§ 9(3). Once the statutory period has passed, subject to any response by Vision Solar, Plaintiffs
intend to amend this Complaint to demand all appropriate relief.
M.G.L. ch. 93A, § 2(a) declares that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
Pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 93A, § 9(1), any person who suffers any loss of money or
property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or
deceptive act or practice may bring an action in the superior court.
Vision Solar, through its conduct as described above, engaged in unfair and
deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of its trade and commerce, including, but not limited
to:
transactions;
93
agreements;
Panel Systems;
caused Plaintiff Froment and the Lupien Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Massachusetts
homeowners to suffer losses of money and property, including, but not limited to, payments
made and obligations incurred for non-functioning Solar Panel Systems, loss of eligibility for tax
credits, and diminished property value due to improperly installed and non-functioning Solar
Panel Systems.
practices, Plaintiff Froment and the Lupien Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Massachusetts
homeowners have suffered damages and are entitled to relief under M.G.L. ch. 93A, §§ 9(3) and
9(4), including, but not limited to, actual damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
94
Plaintiff Froment and the Lupien Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, thus seek (a) a declaration that Vision Solar’s acts and practices as
described above violate Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, §§ 2 and 9; (b) an award of
actual damages; (c) an award of treble damages pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 93A, § 9(3); (d) an award
of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 93A, § 9(4); (e) an order enjoining Vision
Solar from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive acts and practices described above;
(f) an order for the recission of the sales and financing agreements as well as compensatory
damages; and (g) any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Buskey, Plaintiff Henderson, Plaintiff McClelland, and all similarly
situated New Jersey Subclass Members)
Plaintiff Buskey, Plaintiff Henderson, and Plaintiff McClelland incorporate by
reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJ CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq., declares
that “unlawful practices, methods, and acts of competition, deception, fraud, false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, and the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any
material fact with the intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission, in
connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate are unlawful.”
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, any person who has suffered a loss because of a
violation of the NJ CFA may bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or
practice violates the NJ CFA and to enjoin such person who has violated, is violating, or is
otherwise likely to violate the NJ CFA.
95
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, any person who has suffered a loss because of a
violation of the NJ CFA may bring an action for actual damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees,
and court costs.
Defendant Vision Solar, through its conduct as described above, engaged in
unlawful practices, methods, and acts of competition, deception, fraud, false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, and the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of material
and foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements in the conduct of its trade and
transactions;
agreements;
Panel Systems;
96
Vision Solar’s unlawful practices, methods, and acts as described above have
caused Plaintiffs Buskey, Henderson, and McClelland and other similarly situated New Jersey
homeowners to suffer losses of money and property, including, but not limited to, payments
made for non-functioning Solar Panel Systems, loss of eligibility for tax credits, and diminished
property value due to improperly installed Solar Panel Systems and non-functioning Solar Panel
Systems.
As a direct and proximate result of Vision Solar’s unlawful practices, methods,
and acts, Plaintiffs Buskey, Henderson, and McClelland and other similarly situated New Jersey
homeowners have suffered damages and are entitled to relief under the NJ CFA, including, but
not limited to, actual damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Plaintiff Buskey, Plaintiff Henderson, and Plaintiff McClelland, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, thus seek (a) a declaration that Vision Solar’s acts and
practices as described above violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et
seq.; (b) an award of actual damages; (c) an award of treble damages; (d) an award of attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19; (e) an order for the recission of the sales and
financing agreements as well as compensatory damages; and (f) any further relief the Court
COUNT VIII
VIOLATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
73 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 201-1, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Fahey, Plaintiff Pagano, and all similarly situated Pennsylvania
Subclass Members)
97
Plaintiff Fahey and Plaintiff Pagano incorporate by reference all preceding
The Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL), 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq., declares that “unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”
Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a), any person who has suffered a loss as a result of
a violation of UTPCPL may bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or
practice violates UTPCPL and to enjoin such person who has violated, is violating, or is
otherwise likely to violate UTPCPL.
Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a), any person who has suffered a loss as a result of
a violation of UTPCPL may bring an action for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.
Defendant Vision Solar, through its conduct as described above, engaged in unfair
methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade and
transactions;
agreements;
98
Panel Systems;
support Vision Solar's fraudulent practices.
caused Plaintiffs Fahey and Pagano and other similarly situated Pennsylvania homeowners to
suffer losses of money and property, including, but not limited to, payments made for non-
functioning Solar Panel Systems, and diminished property value due to improperly installed
Solar Panel Systems and non-functioning Solar Panel Systems.
practices, Plaintiffs Fahey and Pagano and other similarly situated Pennsylvania homeowners
have suffered damages and are entitled to relief under UTPCPL, including, but not limited to,
actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Plaintiff Fahey and Plaintiff Pagano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, thus seek (a) a declaration that Vision Solar’s acts and practices as described
above violate the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §
201-1, et seq.; (b) an award of actual damages; (c) an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant
to 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a); (d) an order enjoining Vision Solar from continuing to engage in the
unfair and deceptive acts and practices described above; (e) restitution; (f) recission of the sales
99
and financing agreements as well as compensatory damages; and (g) any further relief the Court
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, pray
for judgment against Defendant as to each and every count, including:
A. An order certifying this action and the Classes requested herein as a class action,
designating Plaintiffs as the representatives of the Classes, and appointing Plaintiffs’
counsel as counsel to the Classes;
B. An order declaring (i) that Defendant’s actions constitute fraudulent inducement; (ii)
that Defendant’s actions constitute unfair and deceptive business practices in
violation of the consumer protection statutes of Arizona, Connecticut, Florida,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; (iii) that all agreements between
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes and Defendant are null and void; (iv) that
Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of its wrongful conduct at the expense of
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes; and (v) that Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs
and members of the Classes as described herein, for damages arising therefrom;
C. An order awarding declaratory relief, and any further retrospective or prospective
injunctive relief permitted by law or equity, including declaring all contracts between
Plaintiffs and Defendant null and void, enjoining Defendant from continuing the
unlawful practices alleged herein, and injunctive relief to remedy Defendant’s past
conduct;
D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and members of the Classes all appropriate damages,
in an amount to be determined at trial;
100
E. A judgment awarding equitable, injunctive, and/or declaratory relief as may be
appropriate.
F. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and members of the Classes prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, as permitted by law;
G. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and members of the Classes costs and fees, including
attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law; and
H. Other legal, equitable or further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
DATED: April 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Zachary A. Rynar

Zachary A. Rynar
Ian W. Sloss (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Steven L. Bloch (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Krystyna D. Gancoss (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Brett Burgs (pro hac vice forthcoming)
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, Connecticut 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
zrynar@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
kgancoss@sgtlaw.com
bburgs@sgtlaw.com
Jeffrey Gentes (pro hac vice forthcoming)

CONNECTICUT FAIR HOUSING CENTER
60 Popieluszko Court
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(860) 263-0741
(860) 247-4236 (fax)
jgentes@ctfairhousing.org
101

Bascetta V Vision Solar LLC - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bascetta V Vision Solar LLC - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bascetta V Vision Solar LLC - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-02010 Document 1 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 101 PageID: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

VISION SOLAR, LLC,

knowledge, information and belief, and the investigation of counsel.

unfair inducement of homeowners in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

(“Solar Panel Systems”).

Vision Solar deliberately targeted vulnerable populations—including low-income,

Systems by systematically misrepresenting the benefits of Solar Panel Systems, including

financial terms of the loans and leasing transactions.

are losing money on a net basis.

tactics are profitable.

In recognition of the egregiousness of Vision Solar’s conduct, on March 15, 2023,

contractors to install Solar Panel Systems.

recission of the sales and financing agreements, and damages.

Plaintiff Thomas Bascetta (“Plaintiff Bascetta”) is a citizen and resident of the

Vision Solar, financed by Financing Company Sunlight Financial, in February 2022.

including but not limited to, representing that:

a. Vision Solar would obtain all required permits prior to installation;

cost of the Solar Panel System; and

power used from Plaintiff Bascetta’s current power company.

In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Bascetta,

a. Soliciting Plaintiff Bascetta at home, unannounced;

b. Staying longer than requested in Plaintiff Bascetta’s home;

c. Pressuring Plaintiff Bascetta to sign up for installation of the Solar Panel

System the same day as the in-home inspection;

d. Pressuring Plaintiff Bascetta not to consult an attorney before agreeing to

purchase and finance the Solar Panel System; and

e. Presenting the purchase and financing agreements on a small mobile

device on which Plaintiff Bascetta could not adequately read or evaluate

increased Plaintiff Bascetta’s electricity bill.

Bascetta’s Solar Panel System.

Plaintiff Bascetta has paid $190/month for electricity, an approximate $12/month

$24,000 that Vision Solar promised him.

for the payments he has made, but no reimbursement has occurred.

Despite Financing Company Sunlight Financial’s knowledge of Vision Solar’s

As a result of Vision Solar’s misrepresentations and unfair business practices,

economic and non-economic harm.

and foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Bascetta.

Plaintiff Ar-Rahman Buskey (“Plaintiff Buskey”) is a citizen and resident of the

State of New Jersey.

Buskey moving in to his residence.

a. That Plaintiff Buskey was required to assume the lease in order to

purchase the house;

time Plaintiff Buskey moved in; and

Solar Panel System was activated.

In addition to the misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Buskey,

a. Telling Plaintiff Buskey he needed to agree to assume the lease of the

Solar Panel System that day or lose the opportunity; and

Panel System in order to purchase the house.

a. Falsely telling Plaintiff Buskey he had provided incorrect information to

Vision Solar which prevented Vision Solar from obtaining permits or

to prevent him from insisting on cancelling the contract; and

c. Threatening Plaintiff Buskey with lawsuits for breach of contract when

Plaintiff Buskey asked that the non-functioning Solar Panel System be

removed from his residence.

As a result of Vision Solar’s misrepresentations and unfair business practices,

economic and non-economic harm.

foundational misrepresentations made by Vision Solar to Plaintiff Buskey.

Plaintiff Cuenca was induced by Vision Solar’s salesperson into purchasing a