“If the motion for final approval of the Burnett Settlement is granted following a fair hearing in November 2024, all individual and putative class claims against WPML in this case will be released unless Plaintiffs and Class Members timely opt out of the Burnett Settlement ,” the motion states.
The MLS defendants claimed that granting a stay “will not prejudice the plaintiffs because the case is in its infancy with a motion to dismiss pending, and acknowledged that the claims against WPML will be resolved quickly if the Burnett court ultimately grants the lawsuit. Settlement .
Later in the day, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit fired back. In their response to the motion, they claimed that a stay “would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, be detrimental to the efficiency of justice, and would not significantly alter the ultimate burden on Western Pennsylvania MLS,” which was the main reason for their opposition.
In addition to challenging West Penn MLS’s motion, the plaintiffs are also challenging the settlement agreement reached by NAR and many of the brokerage defendants named in the commission lawsuit. They noted that the defendants and class counsel in the Sitzer/Burnett lawsuit agreed to expand “the class of plaintiffs from Missouri home sellers using a single MLS to virtually all home sellers nationwide.”
In their response, the Moratis plaintiffs said: “They therefore seek to resolve all claims nationwide by all parties harmed by the antitrust conspiracy for an amount equal to the harm that a jury in a single state finds was caused by the conspiracy.” “More importantly, the settlement will also allow other parties involved in the same or similar antitrust conspiracy across the country to opt into the settlement and be relieved of any liability in that action, some free of charge and some free of charge. Similar low-priced contributions.
The response also delves into the changes in business practices outlined in the NAR settlement, which include provisions prohibiting showing MLS cooperative compensation packages and mandatory buyer representation agreements.
Regarding the cancellation of MLS compensation offers, the response noted that the ban does not prevent those compensation offers from being made elsewhere.
“As a result, a key element of the antitrust conspiracy will not be stopped, but will simply be moved underground, where it will be harder to document in the future and harder to stop through antitrust law. This U.S. Department of JusticeOn the one hand, that’s not enough,” the response noted, citing a statement by Justice Department attorney Jessica Leal during a hearing on the Nosalek Commission lawsuit.
The plaintiffs allege that “West Penn MLS was one of the key coconspirators in this case and also had extensive documentary evidence because it served as the conduit through which agents and brokers shared critical information that enabled the antitrust conspiracy.” Operations. ” This, they argue, is why the defendants’ motion to stay should not be granted.
Furthermore, they said the suspension is indefinite as it depends on Boff’s decision, which will be announced on November 26, 2024.
“How long the case goes without meaningful progress will depend on the outcome in Missouri. But all outcomes mean significant delays. The best-case scenario is a five-month pause until the Western District of Missouri decides to deny or The settlement is approved without the possibility of further appeal,” the plaintiffs said in their response.
“That’s unlikely. More likely, the matter will be deadlocked while the Eighth Circuit decides whether the Western District of Missouri’s decision, whatever it is, should be upheld or overturned. In a case of this size, It is not surprising that one or more parties seek a writ of certiorari, during which time evidence becomes stale, witnesses forget key events, and members of the plaintiff class die while awaiting relief. . This bias will be extreme.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, claim that if the court does not stay the case, the prejudice suffered by West Penn MLS will be minimal.
“The balance of interests here is clear: Granting a stay would greatly harm the plaintiff class. It would do little to help West Penn MLS in the long run.
Ultimately, the decision will be made by Judge William S. Stickman, who oversees the proceedings in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh. West Penn MLS did not respond to a request for comment.
