Gibson plaintiffs don’t get to block eXp, Weichert deals 

A U.S. District judge has denied an attempt by attorneys in the Gibson case to scuttle the proposed settlements reached by eXp and Weichert in a separate commissions case in Georgia known as Hooper.

Noting that the Gibson attorneys failed to show they would suffer any prejudice if the court allowed the settlement approval process to continue, Judge Mark Cohen denied their motion to intervene and their request to move the case from Georgia to Missouri.

The arguments from each side: Shortly after eXp settled with the Hooper home sellers in October, the Gibson attorneys objected, claiming the brokerage shopped around to find plaintiffs who would settle for the least money — known as a "reverse auction" strategy — ultimately reaching an "improper sweetheart deal" in the Hooper case. 

The Hooper attorneys responded that the settlements — $34 million for eXp and $8.5 million for Weichert — were actually a better deal for the class of home sellers, and they accused the Gibson attorneys of trying to "line their own pockets" with additional attorney fees. 

Nearly all of the settlements in the commissions cases have been negotiated with the Gibson and Sitzer/Burnett plaintiff attorneys in Missouri, adding more than $1 billion to the settlement fund.

What the Hooper judge had to say: In a March 28 filing, Cohen said the Gibson plaintiffs, referred to in court documents as "proposed intervenors," have every opportunity to object to the settlements through the court hearing process. The settlements still need preliminary approval, which the parties have been seeking since early January, followed by a final approval hearing.

"While identifying the eXp settlement as being the alleged product of a reverse auction, Proposed Intervenors stop short of explaining why intervention is needed in light of the fact that any settlement will need to be approved by a federal district court, and any objections to the settlement on reverse auction grounds can be raised as part of that process," Cohen wrote in the filing.

More debating ahead: On March 31, the Gibson attorneys filed another motion in the Georgia court asking permission to "surreply" — meaning they wish to respond to the proposed settlements in order to address what they say are "specific factual misstatements… and new arguments premised on these inaccuracies."

In the order denying the motion by Gibson attorneys to intervene, Cohen approved requests by eXp and Weichert to file responses to the Gibson attorneys' opposition to the settlements.