HousingWireHousingWire
The 13 brokerages and 15 non-Realtor-owned MLSs that have settled the commission lawsuits through the opt-in mechanisms in the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) settlement agreement are seeking preliminary approval of their deals.
In an unopposed motion filed on Monday, the plaintiffs in the Sitzer/Burnett suit asked the court for preliminary approval of these settlements and to allow for the permissive joinder of the entities that opted in.
The MLSs that chose to join the NAR settlement — and the settlement amounts they’ll pay — are as follows:
Alaska MLS ($238,800)
Bay Area Real Estate Information Service ($736,800)
Central Virginia Regional MLS ($100,000)
MetroList ($2,280,100)
Minot MLS ($26,300)
MiRealSource ($100,000)
MLS Exchange ($361,300)
Real Estate Information Network ($934,100)
Richmond MLS ($15,700)
SE Alaska MLS ($19,000)
Southeast Georgia MLS ($16,800)
Spanish Peaks MLS ($15,700)
UNYREIS ($250,000)
West Penn Multi-List ($895,000)
WNYREIS ($250,000)
Each of the following brokerages recored a sales volume of more than $2 billion in 2022 and were therefore not protected by the NAR settlement unless they opted in, which they have chosen to do.
Fathom Holdings Inc. ($2.95 million)
Key Realty Ltd. ($375,000)
Michael Saunders & Co. ($1.2 million)
Pinnacle Estate Properties Inc. ($725,000)
Rose & Womble Realty Co. ($100,000)
Brown Harris Stevens ($2.9 million)
Shorewest Realtors Inc. ($6.923 million)
Silvercreek Realty Group ($350,000)
The Agency ($3.75 million)
Vanguard ($2 million)
Watson Realty Corp. ($1.35 million)
McGraw Davisson Stewart LLC ($800,000)
Downing-Frye Realty Inc. ($925,000)
Together, all parties that have decided to opt in are contributing an additional $30.6 million to the settlement fund. The amount that each party will pay was determined either through the formula in NAR’s settlement agreement or through a review of the firm’s “internal financial statements and arms-length negotiations.”
The filing states that while the court has already granted preliminary approval of the NAR settlement and the opt-in procedures outlined within, the plaintiffs are requesting that “the Court permit the opting-in non-Realtor MLSs and opting-in brokers to join the case for the limited purpose of participating in the Settlement and approval process.“ They also ask the court to reaffirm the preliminary approvals of these opt-in deals. The plaintiffs said they are doing this “out of an abundance of caution.”
The plaintiffs also argue that permissive joinder, which is a legal rule that allows parties to be joined in a lawsuit as plaintiffs or defendants, is appropriate. This is because the allegations made by plaintiffs in various actions against the opting-in firms share “numerous common questions of law and fact with the existing action,” and the settlements “are directly related to approval of the NAR Settlement.”
“In addition, permitting the opting-in MLSs and brokerages to join will not delay the proceedings or otherwise prejudice the adjudication of the main case,” the filing states. “To the contrary, joinder provides an efficient mechanism for opt-in brokers and non-Realtor MLSs to participate in the settlement (including by making additional payments to the Settlement Class) and, in exchange, obtain a release under the NAR Settlement on the same timeline as the remainder of the NAR Settlement.”
Taking all of this into account, the plaintiffs are asking the court to consider the final approval of the opt-in settlements on Nov. 26, 2024. This is in conjunction with the final approval hearing for the NAR settlement, which is already scheduled for that day.
The plaintiffs also noted that the parties who have opt-in settlements have already seen the motion and did not indicate any objections to it.
