Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
Zillow calls out CoStar media, litigation strategies in lawsuit response
In its first substantive arguments in a high-profile lawsuit with CoStar, Zillow again accused its rival of essentially using legal action to advance its business interests and garner media attention.
Zillow did not address in-depth accusations at the heart of the litigation, as CoStar claims that it engaged in widespread infringement of CoStar-copyrighted images, but instead urged a federal judge in New York to move the case to Washington, where the company is headquartered.
“This case is part of CoStar’s broader playbook of deploying copyright lawsuits to attack its competitors—lawsuits that are typically accompanied by serial press releases from CoStar’s Washington, D.C.-based CEO that seek to extol CoStar and demean its competitors,” Zillow wrote, adding that the “merits of this case are more appropriately decided elsewhere.”
CoStar has argued that New York is appropriate based on the location of the allegedly copyrighted photographs, many of which are in the New York area. Zillow has asserted that New York is an arbitrary choice, as CoStar is headquartered in Virginia. In its latest filing, Zillow named almost a dozen potential witnesses who live in the greater Seattle region, and also claimed that based on publicly available data, only 4% of CoStar employees live in the New York City area.
More broadly, Zillow noted that CoStar has so far not alleged that Zillow directly took the images, with CoStar admitting that at least some of the photos were uploaded by property owners who obtained the photos legitimately.
“Washington courts have a compelling interest in regulating the conduct of corporations based within their borders, particularly where the claims involve core business operations directed from the state,” Zillow wrote.
Settlement reached in lawsuit against The Real Brokerage
The Real Brokerage and former CFO Michelle Ressler have reached a “settlement in principle” in Ressler v. The Real Brokerage.
The lawsuit had been filed by Ressler back in June, following her termination in April over what the company described as violations of policy pertaining to around $17,000 of expenses charged to a company card. Ressler claimed in the suit that the company pushed her out due to her becoming a mother, accusing Real of gender and pregnancy discrimination, defamation and retaliation, in violation of state and federal laws.
As of August, the parties had moved into mediation for a settlement, which now appears to have been successful.
A spokesperson for Real said the settlement terms included Ressler reimbursing the company for the disputed credit card charges, and that Real would make “no payment” to Ressler. The spokesperson declined to comment further on the settlement terms.
Attorneys for Ressler did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
The parties have requested that all deadlines until Dec. 17 are extended while they finalize the terms of a written settlement agreement.
Broker suing NAR moves forward with appeal
Lou Eytalis, a broker who sued the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) along with her local Realtor® associations, is claiming that a federal judge made a mistake in dismissing her lawsuit last summer.
Eytalis had represented herself in the federal litigation, claiming that NAR’s three-way agreement and rules mandating Realtor® membership for MLS access violate antitrust laws. Two federal judges in Texas eventually ruled she did not allege sufficient facts to support her arguments. NAR strongly denied the claims, and has continued to defend these rules against a handful of other broker lawsuits making similar arguments.
In her appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Eytalis claims a magistrate judge “ignored” evidence she presented of a local association’s “coercive pattern,” and that District Judge Reed O’Connor should have separately reviewed her claims rather than accept the magistrate’s interpretation. She is asking the appellate court to reverse the decision.
She also argued she should have been afforded more leniency as a self-represented litigator, and that she also should have been allowed to update her lawsuit with more evidence.
The Fifth Circuit had not ruled on Eytalis’s request at press time.
Plaintiffs request hearing in lawsuit against HomeServices of America
In the homebuyer commission lawsuit Lutz vs. HomeServices of America, plaintiffs have requested the court hold a hearing to present oral arguments on their third amended complaint, as well as the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Defendants had previously filed the same request to the court for a hearing on the complaint and motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs say they support in this filing.
The lawsuit was previously dismissed back in July after the court dismissed plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, but allowed for the filing of a third amended complaint in the following 21 days, which plaintiffs followed through on.
Editor’s note: this story was updated at 2:34 p.m. with a response from a Real spokesperson.
