In the courts: Settlement objectors, Homie, and mandatory membership 

The courts have been busy this month, with a new order from the judge in the Sitzer/Burnett case, a response from discount brokerage Homie in its suit against NAR, and another lawsuit challenging association membership requirements. 

Here's the latest:

No leeway for objectors: The judge overseeing NAR's final settlement hearing isn't budging on his position that objectors must appear in person if they want their arguments to be considered. Multiple objections to the deal have been filed by at least a dozen individuals so far.

In his latest order issued Nov. 18, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Bough denied a request by attorneys for objector Robert Friedman to appear by video conference. Friedman is a plaintiff in a case targeting the Real Estate Board of New York and has argued that the REBNY conspiracy is distinct from the NAR conspiracy and should be considered separately. 

What the judge had to say: "Parties shall abide by the Court's Order ordering all objectors and their attorneys to appear in person at the November 26, 2024 hearing to argue their objections," Bough wrote in his order in the Sitzer/Burnett case.

This isn't the first time that Bough has received pushback. Objectors to the settlements in the Gibson/Umpa case also balked at his ruling requiring them to appear in person at the Oct. 31 hearing. Bough has not ruled on all of the recent requests, but to this point, he has made it clear that he isn't bending on this order. 

The hearings on Nov. 26 will cover NAR's $418 million settlement (along with another $30 million from brokerages and MLSs who opted in) as well as HomeServices of America's $250 million settlement.

The HomeServices hearing is scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Central Time, while the NAR hearing is scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m.

Homie makes a case for injury: Homie Technology — a discount brokerage which is suing NAR and four brokerages over antitrust violations — responded to the defendants' motion to dismiss. 

In a filing on Nov. 15, Homie argued that it was damaged by rules and policies that systematically discriminated against real estate brokerages who sought to offer lower commission fees.

Homie originally filed the case in August, providing texts and emails from NAR member brokers telling the company they would not show Homie listings to clients because the commission fee was too low.

The defendants responded with the motion to dismiss, saying the case lacked jurisdiction and failed to prove any brokerages agreed to boycott the listings.

Homie shot back, saying it has standing because it can show it was "injured by Defendants' conspiracy to maintain their high prices," and that it doesn't need to show individual participation in each aspect of the conspiracy.

"Defendants are responsible for the normal and foreseeable results of their concerted action," attorneys for Homie wrote in the filing, adding that the defendants "fashioned a weapon and placed that weapon in the hands of their members and affiliates with instructions to use it."

More resistance to mandatory membership: Another antitrust suit was filed by a broker challenging the requirement of joining multiple associations in order to use the MLS. 

NAR's "three-way agreement" requires agents who join their local Realtor association — which is often necessary to gain MLS access — to also join their state association and NAR.

John Diaz filed the suit Nov. 1 in the U.S. District Court Western District of California. Diaz, a real estate broker in Modesto, named NAR, the California Association of Realtors, Lodi Association of Realtors and the MLS MetroList as defendants.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Diaz is asking the court to award no less than $3.6 million in damages and eliminate the forced membership rules.