Gibson plaintiffs denied motion to intervene in eXp, Weichert commission settlements

Plaintiffs in a high-profile commission lawsuit have been denied a motion to intervene in eXp World Holdings’ and Weichert Realtors’ settlement in a separate case.

Plaintiffs in the combined Gibson/Umpa suit argued that the settlement agreed to by the brokerages in the Hooper suit is a “sweetheart deal” that’s meant to avoid harsher judgments than they might have received if they’d negotiated their settlements in the Gibson case.

They requested that the case be moved from the Northern District Court of Georgia to the Western District Court of Missouri, where previous cases were settled. But Judge Mark H. Cohen rejected the motion to intervene in the Hooper case. eXp and Weichert maintain that their settlements in the Hooper case is in line with those in the Gibson suit. 

“The Court correctly applied the law and properly denied the Gibson plaintiffs’ motion to intervene and/or transfer,” Bryan Knight, the plaintiffs’ attorney in the Hooper case, said in an email to HousingWire. “We look forward to moving forward with settling this case and providing the class members with the compensation they deserve.”

While other large brokerages settled the Gibson suit, eXp and Weichert chose to negotiate with the plaintiffs in the Hooper case. eXp settled for $34 million in October and Weichert for $8.5 million in November. They filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in January.

The Gibson suit is one of a wave of copycat class-action lawsuits that were filed after the landmark $418 million Sitzer/Burnett settlement agreed to by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The cases accuse NAR and brokerages of artificially inflating commissions for buyer agents.

Like the Sitzer/Burnett case, the Gibson suit is being litigated in Missouri under the watch of Judge Stephen R. Bough, who came under fire from the real estate industry for his handling of Sitzer/Burnett.

He ruled the case “per se” — which deems certain practices inherently illegal in an antitrust lawsuit by “rule of reason” and requires plaintiffs to prove the negative impacts of the practice.

Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, a defendant in the Gibson suit, filed a motion for Bough to recuse himself from the case, citing a conflict of interest related to a plaintiffs’ attorney donating to the city council campaign of Bough’s wife.

Bough offered to recuse himself in the Sitzer/Burnett suit for the same reason but has remained in charge of the Gibson case.

In their motion to dismiss the Gibson plaintiffs’ attempt to intervene, eXp and Weichert cited Bough’s alleged conflict of interest as a reason the case should not be moved to the Missouri court.

Most of the copycat lawsuits have been settled, but lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are homebuyers — rather than sellers — remain outstanding.