Sunnova sued their competitor Spruce over the financing of 88 solar systems. I do not know what happen in TX Harris County 127th District Court.
SUNNOVA ENERGY CORP. v. SPRUCE LENDING, INC., Tex: Court of Appeals, 14th Dist. 2021
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18296377307814808770
MEMORANDUM OPINION #
FRANCES BOURLIOT, Justice.
In one issue in this interlocutory appeal, we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to compel arbitration when the trial court was required to determine whether there was clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to submit the matter to arbitration based on heavily redacted copies of the agreements at issue provided to the trial court. We conclude that the movant did not prove it was entitled to an order compelling arbitration under these circumstances. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion without prejudice to the movant’s ability to be heard on the merits of a subsequent motion to compel.[1]
Background #
Spruce Lending, Inc., Kilowatt Systems, LLC, and CPF Asset Management, LLC (collectively, “Spruce”) hired Sunergy Construction Inc. to install solar power systems. Spruce leases and finances residential solar power systems and works with local contractors to install the systems. Two agreements govern Spruce’s relationship with Sunergy. The first agreement was entered between CPF Asset Management and Sunergy. It involves solar power systems leased by consumers from Kilowatt. The second agreement was entered between Spruce Lending and Sunergy and involves solar power systems purchased from and financed by Spruce (collectively, the “Sunergy Agreements”).
After approximately two years of working together, Spruce informed Sunergy that it intended to stop leasing and financing solar power systems. At the time, Spruce had 117 existing deals with Sunergy that Spruce contends had been substantially completed and could not be transferred to another financing company. Despite this, Sunergy purportedly transferred 88 of these deals to Spruce’s competitor, Sunnova. Spruce sent Sunergy a cease and desist letter and copied Sunnova. Spruce alleged that Sunergy had steered customers away from Spruce and toward Sunnova, purportedly in violation of the Sunergy Agreements. Spruce also sent a demand letter to Sunnova demanding that Sunnova “immediately return [residential solar system sites] to Spruce.”
Spruce subsequently sued Sunnova for tortious interference with contract, declaratory relief, conversion, and unjust enrichment, contending that Sunnova interfered with both the Sunergy Agreements and contracts between Spruce and its end consumers (“Customer Agreements”). Sunnova moved to compel arbitration on Spruce’s claims based on arbitration clauses in the Sunergy Agreements and Customer Agreements. These agreements include similar arbitration provisions and incorporate either the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules or the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules.[2] Spruce opposed Sunnova’s motion to compel arbitration on the basis that Sunnova was not a signatory to the relevant contracts. After a hearing, the trial court denied Sunnova’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.
Discussion
#
… [lengthy and not consumer-related]
