Defendants in the largest buyer-side case (known as Batton) are seeking to prevent plaintiffs from significantly expanding their lawsuit—adding almost 20 new state-level claims and two dozen new class representatives—saying the move will upend a previously agreed-upon schedule and force defendants into even more costly and time-consuming legal work in the long-running lawsuit.
In a joint filing on January 6, lawyers for Anywhere, RE/MAX, Keller Williams and the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) urged the judge overseeing the case, LaShonda Hunt, to deny plaintiffs from amending their lawsuit, calling the move “untimely.”
“The Court previously relied on Plaintiffs’ representations and should continue to hold them to those and reject their unjustifiably belated attempt…to greatly expand the scope of the case and take it back to square one,” defendants wrote Monday in a joint filing.
The expanded case would include three new antitrust claims and 15 allegations of consumer protection violations spread across Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, defendants wrote. Adding these would necessitate more discovery and wrangling over jurisdiction, they said, and could delay any potential trial—previously projected to take place in late 2026 or 2027.
“Granting Plaintiffs’ requested amendment will further protract litigation that is already dragging into its fourth year,” they wrote.
Although the commission lawsuit saga appeared to have culminated with the final approval of NAR’s broad settlement agreement in November, the specter of buyer-side litigation has remained, although in a reduced capacity. Those lawsuits have largely made the same claims around commission-fixing and conspiracy, but argue that homebuyers rather than sellers suffered harm.
Plaintiffs in Batton have argued this late-stage move, which was made as the parties were already deep in the discovery process, was justified due to separate rulings in the seller-side commission cases, in which another judge granted defendants some immunity from claims made by people who both bought and sold a home during the relevant time period. They have appealed those rulings to the Eight Circuit, arguing buyer claims were improperly included in the seller settlements.
The ruling in the seller-side cases, if it stands, would significantly shrink the number of potential class members in buyer-side cases. But lawyers previously told RISMedia that the buyer-side cases remain a significant threat regardless of whether combination buyer/sellers are included.
Defendants in Batton argue the attempt to expand this case is not due to the rulings in the seller cases, characterizing it as strategic and “contrived” while pointing out multiple times over the last two years when plaintiffs represented that they were not planning on amending the lawsuit. Allowing the amendments, they claim, would also further fracture the case, as it would open up new avenues to dispute jurisdiction—arguments that allowed Howard Hanna and HomeServices of America to be dismissed from the case (though plaintiffs quickly sued them again in other jurisdictions).
“Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that their new claims will likely necessitate further motions to dismiss by Defendants, and would therefore also result in an extension of all of the current court deadlines,” defendants wrote. “The Court should not permit Plaintiffs unfairly to surprise Defendants by greatly expanding the scope of their case.”
Hunt had not yet issued a ruling at press time.
