HousingWireHousingWire
The National Association of Realtors (NAR)is pushing back against the antitrust lawsuit filed against it and other Realtor associations in Michigan by three industry professionals.
On Friday, the defendants in the suit filed a motion to dismiss the Hardy suit due to a failure to state a claim. The defendants include NAR, the Michigan Association of Realtors (MAR), Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors (GPBOR), Greater Metropolitan Association of Realtors (GMAR), North Oakland County Board of Realtors (NOCBOR) and RealComp II, a local MLS.
The Hardy suit was filed in mid-August in U.S. District Court in Michigan by Douglas Hardy, Glenn Champion and Dylan Tent.
Hardy is the owner of Snyder Kinney Bennett & Keating LLC, which does business in southeastern Michigan as Signature Sotheby’s International Realty. In addition, Hardy and Champion are primary brokers for Sotheby’s firms that operate in southeastern Michigan, while Tent is a representative of all agents and associate brokers at Sotheby’s in the region.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the requirement for all Realtors and brokers in Michigan to be a member of NAR, their state Realtor association and a local board of Realtors represents an antitrust violation.
In their motion, the defendants claim that all of the defendants in the suit are “voluntary membership organizations that provide myriad valuable benefits to their members.” They go on to say that the plaintiffs “only loosely and vaguely connect” their anticompetitive allegations “to the [membership] requirements for participation in Realcomp that they take issue with.”
The trade groups claim that the complaint fails “to articulate plausible theories establishing elements of any recognized cause of action, and also fails to allege sufficient facts to establish any claim Plaintiffs have purportedly pled.”
“Plaintiffs’ allegations are so vague that they fail to even meet the minimal ’notice pleading’ standard. Even on careful dissection, Defendants cannot identify what cognizable theories of harm Plaintiffs intend to pursue,” the motion states.
“Plaintiffs have brought antitrust claims but do not allege any element of an antitrust claim, and even if they did, none of the speculative ’harms’ Plaintiffs have suffered result from harm to competition. Plaintiffs also assert a common law ’conspiracy’ claim but fail to allege an underlying tort, which is essential to a civil conspiracy claim. Finally, Plaintiffs allege a separate tort — economic coercion — that does not exist under Michigan law.”
Additionally, NAR took issue with the plaintiffs’ allegations that the business practice changes outlined in its commission lawsuit settlement agreement eliminates their “‘guarantee’ of commissions for certain real estate transactions.” NAR claims that the plaintiffs fail to show how the settlement can form the basis of their complaint.
Due to what the defendants believe is a lack of a claim, they are asking the court to dismiss the suit with prejudice.
