The National Association of Realtors® (NAR) is filing a motion for dismissal with prejudice against a broker who sued NAR, the California Association of Realtors® (CAR), Lodi Association of Realtors® (LAR) and the independent MLS, MetroList.
Based on the assertion that NAR and local Realtor® associations violated antitrust laws through fees, dues and membership structures, California broker John Diaz is seeking a court-ordered injunction blocking many NAR policies around dues.
But in its first substantial response to the lawsuit, NAR and the other association defendants say that Diaz failed even to allege direct harm from the policies he is challenging, calling his lawsuit vague and legally unfounded.
“Plaintiff’s attempt to contort his complaints about the dues formula into federal and state antitrust violations by invoking buzzwords and bare conclusions does not meet the threshold to survive a motion to dismiss,” read the filing. “Plaintiff has not pled any injury and for that reason he lacks standing…also (he) fails to plausibly plead any antitrust claim.”
Diaz originally filed his suit on November 1, 2024 in the Central District of California, representing himself and claiming that the defendants unlawfully tied MLS access to association membership. Before year’s end, the court dismissed the case.
He then refiled in the Central District of California on June 9, 2025 against NAR, CAR, LAR, the Central Valley Association of Realtors® (CVAR) and five John Does—this time with professional legal counsel, after his initial self-represented lawsuit was dismissed due to technicalities, including a missing signature.
Over the last year, a handful of brokers in at least four states have sued NAR over these Realtor® membership requirements, broadly alleging that the mandate of joining multiple associations violates antitrust laws.
Diaz’s lawsuit largely focuses on the dues formula—where a brokerage pays dues proportional to the number of agents affiliated with the Realtor®, but aren’t members themselves—and alleges violations of section one of the federal Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act.
According to the NAR filing, Diaz’s claim is based on hypothetical impacts of the dues formula, given that he himself is a Realtor® and never claims to have hired any non-member agents, nor does he allege that he was prevented from hiring.
“(Diaz) does not allege that he has hired, or that he has been unable to hire, any non-member agents, and…fails to adequately plead payment of money or loss of opportunity that would constitute injury in fact for standing purposes,” read the filing. “Second, even if Plaintiff did have standing, his allegations do not state an antitrust violation.”
The defendants note that California is one of only a handful of states that do not require association membership to access any association-owned MLS, and that Diaz is aware of that “conspicuous omission.”
“Defendants are unable to discern the contours of Plaintiff’s antitrust claims, which must be dismissed for various threshold reasons,” they wrote.
Diaz’s argument that the dues formula impacts smaller brokerages disproportionately, or are “coercive” to prevent non-Realtor® participation in the market, are not supported by any facts in his lawsuit, NAR went on to say. Harm to overall consumer choice in the real estate brokerage industry are likewise “too conclusory and speculative to support antitrust standing.”
Additionally, NAR notes that while Diaz claims that non-Realtors® overall are harmed or excluded from the market, he does not allege any coercive action by the defendants, or define any alternative product or service to what Realtors® and MLSs offer.
