Tanya Monestier, a contract law professor at the University at Buffalo, told Judge Stephen Baugh on Monday that she intends to follow in the footsteps of her fellow challengers who have appealed the Nov. 26 ruling.
Whether you’re refining your business model, mastering new technology, or finding a strategy to take advantage of the next market boom, Inman Connect New York prepares you to take a bold step. The next chapter is about to begin. Please join us. Join us and thousands of other real estate leaders from January 22-24, 2025.
Appeals against the final approval of the National Association of Realtors’ settlement that resolves commission-related antitrust claims nationwide have begun to pour in, making it clear that antitrust litigation in the real estate industry will continue for some time.
Tanya Monestier, a contract law professor at the University at Buffalo, on Monday appealed an order approving the deal to Judge Stephen R. Baugh of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, which ordered plaintiffs’ attorneys to pay one-third of the settlement. I told them I would give it to them. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This agreement covers claims in the lawsuit known as Sitzer | Antitrust lawsuit brought by Barnett and Mail and other home sellers.
As a home seller, Monestier is part of the settled class. On October 28, Monestier filed a 136-page objection to the NAR settlement, calling it the “worst of worlds” for consumers. More than a dozen other home sellers also filed objections by that deadline.
In a Dec. 2 filing, Monestier filed a motion to reconsider an “unconstitutional” order requiring Beau to dismiss his objections to the deal and appear in person at the deal’s fairness hearing on Nov. 26. Since November 27th, when she refused, she revealed: She is representing the appellate court in negotiations with the nonprofit Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Center for Class Action Integrity.
On the advice of the institute’s lawyers, she filed a motion to intervene to preserve her right to appeal after Mr. Baugh filed an objection.
“Mr. Monestier intends to challenge the court’s approval of the settlement and award of attorneys’ fees,” the filing states.
“Plaintiffs do not intend to pursue this position because it is contrary to the District Court filing and their own interests. Defendants also do not intend to advance this position in light of their commitment to settlement.
“Because Monestier’s position regarding the denial of settlement and fee claims is ‘completely inconsistent’ with the plaintiffs’ position, she is within her rights to intervene.”
On Tuesday, Baugh rejected the motion to intervene, saying it was unnecessary because “objectors need only timely file an appropriate objection in district court to preserve their right to appeal.” , Monestier did.
Ms. Monestier told Inman she filed a motion to intervene to confirm her standing to appeal.
“Since the court (along with many others) has raised my objections, some questions may have arisen as to whether I can appeal,” Mr. Monestier wrote to Mr. Inman in an email. “But the judge seems to believe that I have a right to appeal without going through this interim process.”
Asked when she planned to file a notice of appeal, she said “soon.” I think it has to be within 30 days of the court order. ”
Meanwhile, other opponents went ahead and filed an appeal. The first appeal was filed on Nov. 27 by Spring Way Center and other home sellers. On December 2, Monty March, another opponent in an antitrust case against the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), filed a notice of appeal.
In his opposition, March protested that his claims were unrelated to the NAR and should not be included in the NAR agreement.
“NAR is not a party to March, and REBNY is not a party to any real estate commission litigation outside of New York City,” the March filing states.
“Because REBNY and NAR have nothing to do with each other. And they haven’t had anything to do with each other for 30 years.”
Additionally, the $418 million that NAR agreed to pay in the settlement was not sufficient to “address both the national harm from NAR’s national conspiracy and the individual and individualized harm resulting from REBNY’s agreement/conspiracy.” is never enough,” the application added.
Read Monestier’s motion to intervene (please reload the page if you don’t see the document):
Email Andrea V. Brambilla.
Like me on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter
