One day after plaintiffs in the largest buyer-focused lawsuit sought to block the National Association of Realtors®’ (NAR) $52 million settlement, a federal judge has curtly denied the request, pointing to her previous ruling when the same plaintiffs tried to prevent Anywhere from striking a similar settlement.
“Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as to Defendant NAR is denied for the same reasons previously stated on the record,” Judge LaShonda Hunt wrote in a court filing yesterday.
NAR and nearly every brokerage named in the buyer lawsuits (which make substantially identical accusations as the Burnett case regarding commission-fixing and conspiracy) have sought to opt-in to a settlement struck in a 2024 copycat lawsuit, known as Tucorri.
The lawyers behind the original buyer lawsuit, known as Batton and filed in 2021, have argued that this procedure was underhanded and deprived plaintiffs of effective representation while allowing NAR and the brokerages to win better settlement deals.
NAR has expressed confidence the settlement will be approved, with a spokesperson telling RISMedia on April 29 that the deal is “fair and reasonable.” The plaintiffs have sought billions of dollars in damages, though multiple judges had ruled out court-ordered practice changes in those cases.
The $52 million settlement, which was announced by NAR on April 10, would cover essentially every MLS, association and brokerage from buyer claims, and effectively put a final period on the commission lawsuit saga, which has continued to drag on after NAR and most companies settled seller lawsuits.
Hunt, in her order, referred to a previous hearing, in which she ruled that a pause on the settlement process would not be “necessary or appropriate” as it related to Anywhere.
“There will be an opportunity to raise all of those objections (for the Batton lawyers),” Hunt said at the time, pointing specifically to an upcoming hearing that will focus on all the Tucorri settlements—currently scheduled for July.
Judge Lindsay Jenkins, who is overseeing Tuccori, expressed frustration that she was not made aware of the parallel and largely identical Batton case, but has also allowed the settlements to move forward so far.
“I just think that there is a process in place, and the plaintiffs will have an opportunity to raise their objection to that settlement as unfair, based on whatever grounds they want to pursue,” Hunt said back in March, in reference to objections to the Anywhere settlement.
The Batton plaintiffs have also appealed rulings on the settlements to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, though no substantial proceedings had taken place there at press time.
