CJ-2026-1612 - Carmen N. Reyes v. GoodLeap, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t just a story about broken solar panels. This is a full-blown, high-voltage con job where two companies allegedly sold an Oklahoma couple a dream — lower electric bills, tax rebates, a greener future — and instead delivered leaks, mold, and a financial nightmare that’s still dripping down their porch like rain through poorly caulked holes. Imagine being promised a magic money-saving machine on your roof, only to find out it’s a glorified paperweight that’s actively rotting your house. That’s exactly what Carmen Reyes and Jose Castro say happened — and now they’re suing not just for repairs, but for justice against what they allege was a coordinated solar scam.

Carmen and Jose aren’t tech moguls or off-grid hippies with a Tesla in every garage. They’re regular homeowners in Tulsa County who, like a lot of people, were tired of getting slapped with $400 electric bills every summer. So when they saw ads or got a call from Green Light Solar — one of those slick, modern solar companies that promise big savings with zero upfront cost — they bit. Who wouldn’t? You install some panels, the sun does the work, your bill plummets, and maybe you even get a tax break. It sounds like adulting finally paid off. But here’s the twist: Green Light wasn’t working alone. They were partnered with GoodLeap, a nationwide solar financing company that doesn’t install panels but does hand out long-term loans that can haunt you for 20 years. Together, these two formed what the lawsuit calls a “symbiotic relationship” — basically, one sells the sizzle, the other provides the debt sausage. And our plaintiffs? They were the dinner.

The sales pitch was textbook smooth. Green Light told Carmen and Jose the system would wipe out their electric bill. Not reduce it. Eliminate it. They also promised a juicy $10,000 tax rebate — a number that probably made Jose do a spit-take with his sweet tea. With those promises in mind, the couple signed on the dotted line — or, more accurately, tapped “I agree” on an electronic document platform more times than they can remember. And that’s the first red flag: they signed multiple versions of the same contract, were told earlier ones were void, and never got a clear, final copy. That’s not just sloppy — it’s a consumer protection violation waiting to happen. But hey, they were excited. New porch? Check. Solar panels on top of it? Sure, why not — the “expert” said it was better. Who are we to question the solar guru?

Two weeks after installation? The roof starts leaking. Not a little drip. We’re talking full-on water intrusion in the area where the panels were mounted. The porch — brand new, mind you — begins to deteriorate. Mold creeps in. The structure is getting damaged, and the couple is now dealing with what’s essentially a slow-motion home disaster. They call Green Light. A guy shows up, slaps some caulk on a few bolts, and calls it a day. No real fix. No follow-up. Just a band-aid on a broken pipe. And the leaks? They get worse. Meanwhile, the solar system itself is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Their electric bills? Still sky-high. Some panels stop working entirely. No repairs. No replacements. Radio silence.

Now here’s where the plot thickens like old motor oil. When Carmen and Jose finally reach out to GoodLeap — the lender — to say, “Hey, we’re paying for a system that doesn’t work and is destroying our house,” GoodLeap calls Green Light. And what does Green Light say? “Oh, their warranty’s void — someone else touched the panels.” Wait, what? Turns out, the couple had hired another solar company to install additional panels on a different part of the roof — an attempt to fix the underperforming system. These new panels didn’t touch Green Light’s hardware. Didn’t mess with their mounts. Didn’t even look at them funny. But Green Light used it as an excuse to ghost them completely. No repairs. No help. Just a shrug and a “you’re on your own.”

So why are they in court? Because this isn’t just about broken panels or a bad handyman job. The lawsuit throws the entire legal kitchen sink at both companies: breach of contract (you promised X, delivered Z), fraud (you lied to get us to sign), violation of Oklahoma’s Consumer Protection Act (you preyed on regular people with deceptive practices), and even violations of credit and commercial codes (your financing game was shady). The core argument? These two companies ran a tag-team scam — Green Light made the promises and botched the installation, while GoodLeap financed a product that never delivered, all while pretending to be hands-off. But the plaintiffs say they were operating as one machine: sell, finance, disappear.

And what do Carmen and Jose want? The filing doesn’t specify a dollar amount — which is unusual, but not unheard of in early petitions — but they are seeking punitive damages, which means they’re not just after repair costs. They want to punish these companies. And honestly? Can you blame them? We’re talking about potential six or seven figures here — not because they’re greedy, but because the damage is real. Roof repairs, mold remediation, engineering inspections, lost tax benefits, emotional distress, years of overpaying on a loan for a system that increased their costs instead of lowering them. Fifty thousand dollars? That might not even cover the structural damage. In the world of home equity and 20-year loans, this is a nuclear-level financial hit.

Here’s our take: the most absurd part isn’t even the mold or the broken panels. It’s the sheer audacity of blaming the victims for trying to fix the company’s own failure. You sold them a lemon, it’s leaking through their ceiling, and when they try to solve the problem themselves — because you refused to — you say, “Oh, you voided the warranty”? That’s like selling someone a car with no brakes, watching it crash, and then saying, “Well, you installed your own seatbelt, so we’re not responsible.” It’s outrageous. And let’s be real — GoodLeap isn’t some innocent bystander. They’re in the business of financing solar deals. If the product is defective, the loan is toxic. They had oversight. They had control. And they looked the other way.

We’re rooting for Carmen and Jose not because they’re perfect — they signed multiple documents they didn’t fully understand, sure — but because they’re the kind of people these predatory schemes target. They wanted to do the right thing: save money, go green, invest in their home. Instead, they got played by a system designed to confuse, overpromise, and disappear when things go south. This case isn’t just about solar panels. It’s about accountability. And if the court sees through the smoke and mirrors, maybe, just maybe, these solar swindlers won’t get to vanish into the sunset.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Minal Gahlot

Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm

Relief Sought

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Carmen N. Reyes individual
Rep: Minal Gahlot of Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm
Jose H. Castro individual
Rep: Minal Gahlot of Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm

Defendants

GoodLeap, LLC business
Green Light Solar, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract, Fraud/Fraud in the Inducement, Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Code, Violation of Oklahoma's Uniform Commercial Code, and Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act	Plaintiffs claim that Defendants misrepresented the solar system's performance and caused damage to their property.

Petition Text

1,434 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CARMEN N. REYES and JOSE H. CASTRO Plaintiffs, v. GOODLEAP, LLC., and GREEN LIGHT SOLAR, LLC. Defendants. FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA March 4, 2026 1:56 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1612 CASE NO.: CJ-2026- PETITION COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Carmen Reyes and Jose Castro, by and through their counsel of record, Minal Gahlot of Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm, and for their Petition state as follows: PARTIES 1. Defendants maintain registered agents in Oklahoma County. 2. Defendants are in the business of marketing, selling, financing, and installing residential solar panel systems for consumers in Oklahoma. Defendants offer long-term solar loan products and related contracts using electronic documents and signature platforms. 3. Applicable law requires that Defendants provide consumers with a copy of the contract documents at the time of signing. The law also affords consumers the right to cancel the contract within three business days of receiving the contract. 4. Defendant Green Light Solar, LLC (Green Light) is in the business of selling and installing residential solar systems. 5. Defendant GoodLeap, LLC (GoodLeap) is in the business of offering consumers loans for residential solar panels. 6. GoodLeap operates nationwide through its subsidiaries, engaging in loan origination, servicing, and assignment related to solar panel financing. 7. At all times relevant, each Defendant acted for the benefit of and on behalf of the other Defendant. 8. On information and belief, Defendants routinely acted together, and did so here, to sell, finance, and complete the sale of solar electric systems. 9. Defendants rely on sales representatives acting on their behalf to obtain accurate information about and from the customer during the sales and financing process. 10. On information and belief, at all times relevant, GoodLeap retained the right to control the manner and method of presentation of its solar loan products, including transactions accomplished through its sales partner Green Light. 11. Defendants require representatives acting on their behalf, such as the salesperson involved here, to present, review, and execute documents electronically, and to do so in a manner specified by Defendants. 12. Defendant GoodLeap supervises and monitors the conduct of its partner companies and sales representatives that sell and originate its loan products on its behalf. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendants carried on a symbiotic business relationship in which Green Light marketed and installed the solar panels, and GoodLeap financed the transactions. Defendants rely and depend on each other to carry out this course of business. 14. At all times relevant, Defendant Green Light and the sales representative acted on behalf of and for the benefit of GoodLeap, who could not complete the transaction without the involvement of the sales representative. In other words, Defendants had a symbiotic relationship that relied upon the representative who is the only face of the companies when dealing with the consumer. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 15. In or around March 2022, Plaintiffs Carmen N. Reyes and Jose H. Castro contacted Defendant Green Light Solar, LLC regarding the purchase and installation of a residential solar panel system at their home in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 16. At the time, Plaintiffs’ average monthly electric bill was approximately $300, with summer months exceeding $375–$400. 17. Plaintiffs contacted Green Light because they were interested in reducing their electricity expenses through solar energy. 18. During the sales process, Green Light represented to Plaintiffs that the solar system would eliminate or substantially eliminate their monthly electricity bill. 19. Green Light further represented that the system would include sufficient panels to cover Plaintiffs’ energy usage. 20. Green Light also represented that Plaintiffs would receive approximately $10,000 in tax rebate benefits that could be applied toward the loan balance. 21. Based on these representations, Plaintiffs agreed to proceed with the transaction. 22. Defendant GoodLeap financed the transaction through a long-term consumer solar loan in which Plaintiff Carmen N. Reyes was the primary borrower and Plaintiff Jose H. Castro was the co-signer. 23. During the contracting process, Plaintiffs were required to execute multiple sets of electronic documents relating to the solar transaction. 24. Plaintiffs were initially presented with one set of loan and transaction documents through an electronic signature platform. 25. Thereafter, Plaintiffs were informed that the original paperwork needed to be replaced or corrected and were asked to execute additional documents. 26. Plaintiffs ultimately signed more than one version of transaction documents relating to the same solar project. 27. At various points, Plaintiffs were told that prior documents would be canceled or replaced. 28. Plaintiffs were not provided clear, consistent copies of all executed agreements at the time of signing. 29. Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ representations that the final set of documents reflected the correct and operative agreement. 30. Shortly before the solar system was installed, Plaintiffs constructed a new front porch on their home. 31. Initially, the solar panels were to be placed on the roof of the house, but when Green Light representatives came to install the system, they informed Plaintiffs that it would be better to install them on the top of their new porch as well. Plaintiffs trusted the representatives and consented to them placing panels on top of the porch. 32. Within approximately two weeks of installation, Plaintiffs began experiencing roof leaks in the area where the panels had been mounted. 33. Plaintiffs promptly notified Green Light of the water intrusion. 34. Green Light sent a representative to the home, who applied caulking to certain bolts or mounting points but did not perform any meaningful structural repair. 35. The representative did not fully repair Plaintiff's porch, and the leaks continued to worsen after that visit. 36. As a result of the leak, the porch ceiling area where panels were installed began deteriorating. Mold and water damage developed in the affected areas. 37. Plaintiffs repeatedly attempted to contact Green Light to request proper repair, but Green Light failed to return and properly remediate the roof damage. 38. In addition to the roof damage, the solar system did not perform as represented. 39. Plaintiffs’ electricity bill did not decrease as promised. 40. In summer months, Plaintiffs continue to receive significantly higher electric bills. 41. The solar system installed by Green Light has not functioned properly. Certain panels ceased producing electricity within a short period of time after installation and have not been repaired or replaced. 42. Plaintiffs have not received the promised financial benefit that formed the basis of the transaction. 43. After Green Light failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for repair, Plaintiffs contacted Defendant GoodLeap to report the ongoing roof damage and system performance issues. 44. GoodLeap advised Plaintiffs that it would contact Green Light regarding their complaints. 45. Green Light represented to GoodLeap that Plaintiffs’ warranty coverage had been voided because “someone else touched the panels.” 46. Green Light’s statement was made after Plaintiffs had later engaged a separate solar company to install additional panels on a different portion of their home in an attempt to correct the deficiencies of the original system. 47. The later-installed panels were placed on a separate section of the roof and did not alter, remove, modify, or interfere with the panels or mounting hardware installed by Green Light. 48. Green Light refused to perform additional repairs despite the ongoing water intrusion and non-functioning panels. 49. As a direct result of Green Light’s defective installation, Plaintiffs’ porch structure has sustained prolonged water damage. 50. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur costs associated with inspection, remediation, and structural repair of their home. 51. Plaintiffs are obligated under a long-term financing agreement for a solar system that does not perform as represented and that has caused structural damage to their home. 52. Defendants’ willful, wanton, reckless, and/or negligent conduct has resulted in Plaintiffs suffering significant financial harm and ongoing deterioration of their property. Moreover, Plaintiffs have suffered mental and emotional distress, worry, and aggravation because of Defendants’ actions. 53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been fraudulently induced into contracts with an overpriced and underperforming solar system and deprived of the promised energy savings. 54. GoodLeap’s liability is both independent and derivative of Green Light’s actions, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 433.1 et seq, effective May 14th, 1976; 40 F.R. No. 223, 53506 (Nov. 18th, 1975). 55. Plaintiffs file this claim against the Defendants for actual, consequential, statutory, and exemplary damages, as well as claims of Breach of Contract, Fraud/Fraud in the Inducement, Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Code, Violation of Oklahoma’s Uniform Commercial Code, and Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. WHEREFORE, premises stated, Plaintiffs pray for their actual, consequential statutory, and punitive damages; along with their reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action and all other relief the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, Minal Gahlot, OBA #22145 Oklahoma Consumer Law Firm 922 SW 107th Street, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73170 (405) 331-5811 [email protected] Attorney for the Plaintiffs JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED