Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
March v. REBNY debates extension of pause, appeal timeline
Plaintiffs in March v. the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) have requested the case remains stayed while their appeal against the approved NAR settlement is pending.
The filing from the plaintiffs stated that REBNY has been negotiating that in the case of approval of the NAR settlement, they would be released from the case. However, the plaintiffs noted that in light of their appeal against the NAR settlement, “it is still unclear which Defendants would be released from the NAR settlement.”
But the plaintiffs also disputed whether REBNY had properly requested a stay, saying in a separate letter that REBNY’s request was “procedurally improper” and forced them to respond “in an abbreviated manner” on short notice.
“REBNY’s Letter is purposefully prepared to create confusion and uncertainty concerning critical issues relevant to its request for a stay,” plaintiffs wrote, claiming it is “patently clear” that REBNY has not yet confirmed it will be covered by the NAR settlement.
They also disputed REBNY’s assertion that appeals of the Burnett settlement will be decided relatively quickly, claiming that “(i)t is more likely that the appeals will be decided by March 2026 than March 2025, if even then.”
The March plaintiffs previously objected to the NAR settlement, seeking to carve out their case as fundamentally distinct from national commission lawsuits. They subsequently appealed the final court approval of the deal, only days after a judge made that ruling.
The judge in March had not yet ruled on the disputes at press time.
Hooper v. NAR sees settlement
One of the many Burnett copycat cases—1925 Hooper v. NAR, filed in Georgia—saw a settlement filed by defendant Atlanta Communities. Information on the terms of the settlement or any monetary value have yet to be released.
The case was granted a continuation of its stay while the approved NAR settlement hears appeals, and now plaintiffs and defendants have jointly filed to continue that stay again as this settlement is pending.
Three cases file to extend stays
Nosalek v. MLS PIN, Grace v. NAR and Tuccori v. At Properties have extended the stays in their cases.
Nosalek v. MLS PIN has been stayed since June as a settlement by MLS PIN was pending, and as the NAR settlement was pending. The stay has been continued as plaintiffs have requested an extension of time to file their supplemental memorandum in support of preliminary approval of their settlement with MLS PIN.
Notably, MLS PIN was the first commission lawsuit to see a settlement, well before the Burnett trial, but an intervention by the Department of Justice precipitated a lengthy delay in that process.
Both plaintiffs and defendants in Grace v. NAR jointly filed to request an extension of the stay in their case while the approved NAR settlement hears appeals. They specifically requested for the case to remain stayed for 61 days following the date of final approval of the NAR Settlement, meaning Monday, Jan. 27, 2025.
In Tuccori v. At Properties, plaintiffs and the single defendant (the parent company of @properties Christie’s International Real Estate) agreed to extend the stay as they continue to work on the “framework” of a settlement agreement. While At Properties already entered into a broader settlement with seller plaintiffs, the Tuccori lawsuit includes claims by recent homebuyers, which likely explains why the negotiations have continued in this case.
