Plaintiffs in the largest buyer commission case (known as Batton) filed a motion to intervene Monday in a smaller commission case, Tuccori v. At World Properties, seeking to block preliminary approval of a proposed opt-in settlement by Anywhere Real Estate (a defendant in Batton) that they say would extinguish five years of homebuyer antitrust litigation for a fraction of its value.
The motion was filed just one day after the Tuccori counsel moved for preliminary approval of the Anywhere deal. The exact settlement amount is under seal, but Batton plaintiffs’ filing states it is less than $10.78 million—a sum they argue falls well short of every relevant benchmark.
According to previous court filings, several large brokerages chose to “opt-in” to a settlement that was struck last year in the low-profile Tuccori case. Anywhere is by far the largest, and plaintiffs told Judge Lindsey Jenkins, who is overseeing the Tuccori case, that the real estate giant began negotiations for the settlement shortly after it was acquired by Compass.
The controversy mirrors a separate messy settlement back-and-forth involving eXp and Weichert, who were similarly accused of trying to negotiate a lower settlement in a smaller copycat case (involving seller claims). Both companies have defended the process by which they reached a deal, though at least one federal judge found the plaintiffs’ arguments convincing.
RISMedia reached out to counsel for all parties—Batton plaintiffs, Tuccori plaintiffs and Anywhere Real Estate—but did not immediately hear back.
Anywhere previously paid $83.5 million to settle home seller claims in Burnett v. National Association of Realtors®. Tuccori’s own opt-in settlement structure sets a 25% benchmark relative to Burnett payments.
The Batton plaintiffs’ own recently approved settlement with Keller Williams—a co-defendant in the same alleged conspiracy—came in at 28.56% of what KW paid in Burnett. By any of those measures, Batton plaintiffs say, the proposed Anywhere deal doesn’t come close.
But Tuccori plaintiffs claim that Keller Williams’ settlement “encompasses homebuyer claims that have already been released,” meaning buyers who also sold homes who (pending an appeal to the Eighth Circuit) are covered by the Burnett settlements.
The filing invokes the Seventh Circuit’s reverse auction doctrine, which requires close scrutiny of settlements where a defendant bypasses experienced, well-developed litigation in favor of a lower settlement with less-seasoned counsel.
Batton plaintiffs argue that is what happened here: Tuccori counsel never named Anywhere as a defendant, never briefed a contested motion against the company, and conducted only limited discovery before reaching a deal — while Batton counsel spent five years defeating motions to dismiss, conducting extensive fact discovery, retaining economic experts, and managing claims across more than 30 states.
“It is hard to envision a greater interest,” the motion states, referring to Batton plaintiffs’ stake in preventing the release of claims they have spent millions of dollars developing.
“Now…Plaintiffs and Anywhere…seek to…release Batton Plaintiffs’ claims against Anywhere on the cheap at the expense of class members,” the filing states.
If the Tuccori settlement is approved as written, it would legally release Batton’s claims against Anywhere. To prevent that outcome, Batton plaintiffs say they will immediately seek a temporary restraining order if the invention motion is granted.
They also seek to reassign the Anywhere claims to Judge LaShonda Hunt (who is overseeing Batton), and have signaled they will appeal any final approval of the settlement.
