Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
Hooper plaintiffs accuse interveners of demanding compensation, support settlements
Plaintiffs in 1925 Hooper vs. NAR recently filed a reply in support of the controversial settlements from eXp and Weichert, and accused the proposed interveners of demanding compensation.
Plaintiffs accused the proposed interveners’ counsel—meaning the attorneys behind the Burnett and Moehrl plaintiffs—of requesting “60% of any fees obtained in this case (in addition to covering all costs of litigation)” in return for them avoiding intervention in the settlements.
Plaintiffs stated in the filing that after they “rejected that demand and ultimately reached the fair and reasonable settlements at issue here, PI Counsel—true to their implicit threat—sought to hijack not only those settlements, but this entire case, by moving to intervene and transfer the action to their preferred court and judge in Missouri.”
The settlements from eXp and Weichert have been under fire, with the companies accused of reverse-auctioning in order to settle their commission lawsuits for a lesser price tag. Hooper plaintiffs, who are in support of the settlements, claimed that these accusations are “patently self-serving and demonstrably false.”
The Hooper plaintiffs also point out that potential class members would receive more money under their deal, as they had agreed to only 20% attorney’s fees, compared to 33.3% requested by the Burnett plaintiffs.
The Ninth Circuit affirms REX v. Zillow ruling
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court decision denying REX’s attempt to revive claims that Zillow and NAR conspired to implement the “no-commingling” rule in violation of antitrust statutes.
Judges Sidney Thomas, Daniel Bress and Ana de Alba wrote that REX had failed any “concerted action” by defendants, and also could not retroactively allege a conspiracy between individual MLSs and Zillow.
As the three-judge panel stated in the filing, “Each NAR-affiliated multiple listing service independently chose whether to adopt the rule, and indeed twenty-nine percent of them did not. The rule was in fact optional and does not establish a(n) (antitrust) agreement by itself.”
After this update, it appears that the long-running lawsuit has finally fizzled out.
