Inman on Tour: Increase the volume of real estate success in Nashville! Connect with industry pioneers and top speakers, gain insights, cutting-edge strategies and valuable connectivity. Increase your business and achieve your most audacious goals – all with Music City Magic. Sign up now.
A federal judge rejected a request from his hometown plaintiff at a court hearing Thursday to add a state law claim to an antitrust lawsuit.
US District Court Judge Rachondahunt for the Northern District of Illinois on February 13th for the lawsuit first filed in 2021 and known as Baton 1 (formerly Leader) who sought class action status. The hearing was held.
Join us in the February Inman Intel Index survey
The suit claims that the national RE/MAX and Keller Williams are named defendants and claims that they claim the same NAR rules in home seller cases nationwide, resulting in a buyer paying in violation of antitrust laws. The price has increased.
In December, eight baton 1 plaintiffs added 24 new names of plaintiffs to amend the complaint, adding 18 new state law claims in addition to the 40 remaining such claims. I have filed a motion to ask for additional information.
This, at least in part, was that another Missouri federal court last year granted final approval to settle all defendants’ resident claims, suing the suit as a buyer under the same challenged rules, and numbered it. This is because they hindered sellers who thwarted the sellers who had significantly reduced the number. of a member of a class member whose buyer committee lawsuit must receive class action status. These settlements are currently under appeal in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
State law claims are particularly relevant when a home buyer, not a home seller, makes antitrust claims. Because as an indirect buyer of a buyer securities service, the buyer is not permitted to sue under federal antitrust laws, but may sue under state antitrust laws.
Rachonda A. Hunt
Still, during a hearing Thursday, Hunt said he was “a little surprised and confused” by the plaintiff’s request.
“I was hoping for a new plaintiff…I had this question about the scope of the release that is currently attributable to the appeal, so who could intervene,” Hunt said.
“What I wasn’t expecting was a lot of new claims.”
She noted that former judge Andrea Wood, who handled the case, was scheduled for June to schedule the case and certify the class.
“The petition is set up, there is a schedule, and the class certificate is paid in four months, so all of these new claims are now up and why they weren’t brought up when it was revised. I don’t know. A complaint has been filed [in July 2022]Hunt said.
Plaintiff’s lawyer, Randall P. Ewing Jr. Collain Tilary, has reported that additional claims under the State Antitrust and Consumer Protection Act were identified last year and filed by the same law firm. He told Hunt that it was filed in the lawsuit.
“So it was mainly about adjusting that,” Ewing said.
Still, he told Hunt that she tends to allow new plaintiffs, but if it’s not a new claim, “it certainly is a middle ground where we can address some of the plaintiff’s concerns.”
Ewing said that the plaintiffs collect transaction-level data from multiple listing services and it was unclear whether experts could process that data at the June class certification deadline, but the plaintiffs changed the changes. He added that he didn’t want to. The deadline is at this point.
Morgan’s Stacey Anne Mahoney, Lewis & Bocchius, told Hunt everywhere that there were “less issues with new plaintiffs” than new claims, but the demands still “stricken us by saying they were diluted a bit. ” or unnecessary delay.
“It seems we feel very strongly, especially if they are not allowed to add new claims. Mahoney was the first to hear about plaintiffs seeking data from MLSS. He added.
Ultimately, Hunt told the plaintiff’s attorney that “there is no tendency to allow additional claims at this point.” The plaintiff said he had “an opportunity to revise the complaint” and “try to reinforce the appointed plaintiff.” Due to the extent of the settlement, it is not “reason forbidden at this point to pleas in this case.”
“I think it would just slow down the scope of this case too much and expand it, and delay the discovery even further,” she said.
“I don’t think that makes sense in the 2021 case.”
She also questioned whether the plaintiffs should add all 24 new plaintiffs to the case.
“Is it going to produce another round briefing on the appeal when the parties are hoping to focus on findings and moving this case forward towards a class accreditation ruling?” she asks. Ta.
Hunt proposed that the parties understand whether they can agree on which new plaintiffs can be added to the suit before governing the plaintiff’s claim for leave to be amended.
“If there is a way to deal with a new plaintiff that doesn’t burden the lawsuit, I would like to discuss it with the defendant,” Ewing told Hunt.
“Our main concern is class accreditation. Having enough plaintiffs in various states means that class accreditation can represent class interest.”
Hunt responded that plaintiffs always had the option of asking them to amend their complaints to add new plaintiffs.
“This is common in these cases, so if you leave the complaint alone, you will advance your discovery and ultimately determine that a plaintiff with an additional name is required, you will waive your rights. I don’t think there will be. A class finalization,” Hunt said.
Hunt has made the parties submit a joint status report in two weeks until February 27th, informing them whether an agreement can be reached. She also set March 14th as the deadline for the next joint status report on the progress of the incident’s discovery and the settlement discussion they may have.
Please email Andrea V. Brambila.
Like me on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter
