Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
Homie Technologies sues NAR
Homie Technologies—a Utah-based flat-fee firm—filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah on Aug. 22. The filing claims that NAR and other companies “conspired” to prevent innovation and boycott low-commission listings.
Specifically, the lawsuit cites that Homie suffered from “express and tacit boycotts” that involved real estate companies “steering buyers away from” its listings.
Beyond NAR, defendants include RE/MAX, Anywhere Real Estate, Keller Williams Realty, HomeServices of America and Utah-based Wasatch Front Regional MLS.
Homie cites that they received “messages in the comment field of WFRMLS, messages which vividly illustrate the exclusionary steering facilitated by NAR’s Exclusionary Rules and Policies” as some of their evidence for the case.
Defendants seek dismissal of Lutz case
HomeServices of America and Douglas Elliman filed seeking the dismissal of the Lutz v. HomeServices of America, Inc. suit on Aug. 19.
The Lutz case is one of the handful of buyer side lawsuits alleging plaintiffs inflated commissions currently floating through the industry. It was originally filed April 29 in Florida Southern District Court against Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Affiliates, LLC; HSF Affiliates, LLC and HomeServices of America, Inc., after those companies were dropped from the larger Batton case on jurisdictional grounds.
The motion of dismissal cites Judge Andrea Wood, who is overseeing Batton, stating that plaintiffs who filed identical complaints are not “efficient enforcers of antitrust laws.” Therefore, this suit—which files for injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act—must receive the same ruling, the defendants argued.
Gibson plaintiff attorneys seek one-third of settlement
The plaintiff attorneys in Gibson vs. NAR have filed a request that the courts grant them one-third of the $110.6 million settlement pool (which equates to $36.8 million) as payment for their legal fees and work on the case.
The plaintiff attorneys—which include star trial attorney Michael Ketchmark—argue in the filing that they invested “more than 105,000 hours of work” and “over $13 million of their own money” in the case, as well as assuming “significant risk.”
The requested amount of $36.8 million is, as the filing states, supported by the precedent of the “well-established Eighth Circuit law,” which suggests that attorney’s fees are calculated based on a standard percentage of the fund that is recovered due to their efforts in contingent cases.
Michigan Board of REALTORS® officially served for Hardy case
The Michigan Board of REALTORS® were officially served by the plaintiffs in the Michigan based Hardy vs. NAR lawsuit on Aug. 19.
The Hardy case was filed by real estate agents against NAR, the Michigan Board of REALTORS® and two local REALTOR® boards. The lawsuit claims that the NAR settlement specifically made REALTOR® membership and MLS access less valuable. The plaintiffs state that they had to join all of these organizations in order to access the MLS.
