exist Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-August. On January 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be cut through, all the big questions will be answered, and the new business opportunities that await will be revealed. join us.
The federal court dealt a setback to both sides in the explosive commission case called Sitzer | Monday, Burnett. The U.S. Supreme Court will not intervene in the case at the request of defendant HomeServices of America, and the plaintiffs cannot seek $4.7 billion in damages from HomeServices—at least not yet.
For the former, the U.S. Supreme Court be rejected Home Services’ petition The petition for “certiorari” asks the court to review an August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that affirmed a lower district court’s ruling that a real estate franchise cannot enforce an arbitration agreement signed by its franchisee’s seller customer because the seller is not Contract directly with HomeServices.
Chris Kelly (Image: Ebby Halliday)
“While we firmly believe that the arbitration issue we raised through our petition to the Supreme Court is an important one, given the circuit courts’ conflicting interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act, we certainly understand that the possibility of arbitration and the number of cases are very limited. The Supreme Court The court chooses to hold court every time,” Family Services Executive Vice President Chris Kelly told Inman in a statement.
“This is just one of many roads that we think are important.”
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition without comment, upholding the lower court’s ruling. The ruling clears the way for HomeServices and its two subsidiaries, BHH Affiliates and HSF Affiliates, to stand trial as defendants in a three-week trial in October. , giving up their rights.
The Supreme Court’s denial cuts off the path to undoing the trial’s historic jury verdict, which found that Keller Williams, RE/MAX, Anywhere, the National Association of Realtors, HomeServices, BHH affiliates and HSF affiliates conspired to inflate broker payments Commission rates for home sellers violate federal antitrust laws. Juries awarded $1.78 billion in damages to approximately 500,000 Missouri homeowners. If the ruling stands, the amount stipulated in the law will triple to $5.36 billion.
Michael Ketchmark, lead plaintiff’s attorney for Sitzer | Burnett told Inman the Supreme Court’s decision was “the final nail in the coffin” for Home Services.
“HomeServices has been desperately trying to avoid liability in front of a jury,” Ketchmark said. “The U.S. Supreme Court has now made clear that its argument lacks merit.
Michael Kagemak
“HomeServices now finds itself on an island, defending rules that the rest of the industry has abandoned. It’s time for the company to step up and protect its agents.
All other defendants in the Sitzer | Burnett case except the HomeServices defendants have reached proposed settlements with the plaintiffs. As part of NAR’s proposed settlement, the 1.5 million-member trade group agreed to eliminate the NAR rule at the heart of the case.
Known as the Cooperative Compensation Rule or Participation Rule, it requires listing brokers to provide comprehensive, unilateral compensation to buyer’s brokers for submitting listings in a real estate broker-affiliated Multiple Listing Service. If the proposed settlement is approved, NAR will implement the rule changes in July.
On the other hand, the plaintiff’s latest petition in the case was also dismissed on Monday. Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri declined to order HomeServices to pay most of the damages awarded at trial — at least for now.
On March 18, attorneys for Sitzer | Burnett plaintiffs filed suit Motion for judgment They formally requested that the court triple the amount of Sitzer|Burnett damages and that the HomeServices defendants be liable for the full amount after deductions from other settlements: $4,729,432,616. This will be 88% of the triple bonus.
The plaintiff also seeks compensation for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, as well as interest on the amount of damages, calculated at the rate of 5.4% per annum, compounded annually, from the day after the judgment (November 1).
But HomeServices fought back against the motion, telling the court earlier this month that it would be premature to make such an order because the court has not yet approved the plaintiffs’ settlement with the other defendants.
in his Order on April 15thBove agreed with HomeServices, noting that “a final judgment has not yet been issued with respect to the HomeServices defendants” and that the plaintiffs “did not allege a danger or hardship, other than that the plaintiffs would not be able to obtain settlement funds for several months.”
Judge Stephen Baugh | Photo courtesy of University of Kansas School of Law
“Given that this court should seek to prevent piecemeal appeals and that any appeals related to the settlement will be related to judgment against the HomeServices defendants, the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that it is necessary to prove judgment against the HomeServices defendants at any time,” Bo added.
He denied the plaintiff’s motion without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff could later refile his motion for reconsideration.
Kegemark said Bove’s ruling was “expected.”
“The trial court has made it clear that it will reconsider the tripling of damages once other settlements are finalized,” he added. “This is not surprising.”
Kelly said HomeServices was “pleased with the court’s decision that it is premature to issue a verdict at this stage”.
“There are several outstanding issues that remain to be resolved, including our post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and our motion for a new trial.
“Furthermore, the court acknowledges that the pending settlements have not yet received final approval and objections to those settlements must still be resolved. These factors can significantly affect the final judgment and must be addressed before any judgment is rendered.”
Read Bove’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion:
Send an email to Andrea V. Brambila.
