Defendants
in
the
behemoth
Batton
homebuyer

commission
lawsuit
filed
a
ream
of
motions
on
Monday
seeking
to
have
the
class-action
allegations
struck
down
and
dismissed.

The

Batton
suit
consists
of
two
separate
lawsuits
filed
by
the
same
homebuyer
plaintiffs,
alleging
that
the


National
Association
of
Realtors
(NAR)
and
several
of
the
nation’s
largest
corporate
real
estate
firms
conspired
to
adopt
and
enforce
anti-competitive
rules
applicable
to
the
vast
majority
of
real
estate
brokers,
resulting
in
homebuyers
paying
supra-competitive
rates
of
commission
to
the
brokers
they
retained
to
assist
with
their
home
purchases.

The
first
Batton
suit
was
filed
in
Illinois
in
January
2021
by
Judah
Leeder
and
later
amended
in
July
2022
with
Mya
Batton
as
the
lead
plaintiff.
The
defendants
in
the
suit
include
NAR,


Anywhere, Keller
Williams, HomeServices
of
America and RE/MAX.

The
second
Batton
suit
was
filed
in
November
2023,
just
days
after
the
jury
verdict
in
the
Sitzer/Burnett
suit
was
announced,
and
the
defendants
include


Compass, eXp
World
Holdings, Redfin, Weichert
Realtors, United
Real
Estate, Howard
Hanna and Douglas
Elliman.

In
January
2024,
the
court
ruled
that
the
two
lawsuits
could
consolidate
into
one.
Since
then,
both

Howard
Hanna
and

HomeServices
of
America
have
been
dismissed
from
the
lawsuit.

Additionally,
while
NAR,
Anywhere,
RE/MAX,
Keller
Williams
and
Compass
have
all
reached

settlement
agreements
in
the

commission
lawsuits,
these
settlements
only
apply
to
the
lawsuits
with
home
seller
plaintiffs.
 

One
of
the
most
common
types
of
motions
filed
by
the
defendants
on
Monday
was
a
move
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
jurisdiction,
which
were
filed
by
eXp,
Douglas
Elliman,
Keller
Williams,
Anywhere
and
RE/MAX.
Each
of
the
motions
argue
that
the
court
lack
jurisdiction
over
the
defendants
as
the
firms
are
headquartered
outside
of
Illinois.

“This
Court
lacks
specific
personal
jurisdiction
over
Keller
Williams
because
Plaintiffs
did
not
purchase
homes
or
suffer
alleged
injuries
in
Illinois,”
an
attorney
for
Keller
Williams
wrote
in
the
firm’s
filing.
“Even
if
they
had
suffered
injuries
in
Illinois,
those
alleged
injuries
were
not
caused
by
any
activities
in
which
Keller
Williams
engaged
in
Illinois.”

Defendants
United
Real
Estate
and
Weichert
made
similar
claims
in
their
motion
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
jurisdiction
and
failure
to
state
a
claim
their
filings.
Attorneys
for
Weichert
(WREA)
also
referenced
the
court’s
dismissal
of
HomeServices
of
America
to
bolster
their
argument.

“This
Court
recently
dismissed
all
claims
for
lack
of
personal
jurisdiction
as
to
the
HomeServices
defendants
on
the
grounds
that
the
defendants
were
not
incorporated
and
did
not
have
their
principal
place
of
business
in
Illinois,
are
not
members
of
the
National
Association
of
Realtors
(“NAR”),
and
did
not
play
any
role
in
crafting
any
NAR
rules
at
issue
in
the
case,”
the
filing
states.

“WREA
is
not
incorporated
in
Illinois,
does
not
maintain
its
principal
place
of
business
there,
has
no
offices,
property,
employees,
or
business
operations
in
the
State,
is
not
a
member
of
NAR,
and
played
absolutely
no
role
in
enacting,
enforcing,
or
implementing
any
NAR
rule.”

While
many
of
the
firms,
including
Weichert,
have
franchises
in
Illinois,
Weichert’s
motion
notes
that
“courts
have
consistently
held
that
a
franchisor
relationship
is
insufficient
to
confer
personal
jurisdiction
unless
the
franchisor
exerts
a
high
degree
of
control
over
the
daily
activities
of
the
in-state
franchises.”

In
addition
to
these
motions,
the
remaining
defendants
in
what
was
initially
the
Batton
2
suit
—
Compass,
eXp,
Redfin,
Weichert,
United
Real
Estate
and
Douglas
Elliman
—
filed
a
joint
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim
and
a
motion
to
strike
the
complaint.

In
their
motion
to
dismiss
the
suit,
the
defendants
argue
that
the
plaintiffs
lack
standing
to
sue
the
defendants
under
federal
antitrust
law,
and
that
the
complaint
“fails
to
allege
facts
to
plausibly
suggest
that
the
Defendants
entered
into
any
agreement
—
with
non-party
National
Association
of
Realtors
(“NAR”)
or
amongst
the
Defendants
—
and
certainly
not
into
any
anticompetitive
agreement.

“The
Complaint
instead
improperly
lumps
Defendants
into
a
group
and
concludes
that
the
group
entered
into
a
conspiracy,
with
no
allegations
as
to
how,
when,
or
even
if
each
individual
Defendant
allegedly
entered
into
an
anticompetitive
agreement,”
the
motion
continues.
“Courts
have
repeatedly
held
that
this
type
of
vague
‘group
pleading’
is
insufficient
for
an
antitrust
case.”

Additionally,
the
defendants
argue
that
the
plaintiffs
“fail
to
allege
any
facts
showing
why
they
are
entitled
to
any
tolling
against
these
Defendants,”
and
that
they
“fail
to
plead
sufficient
facts
in
support
of
certain
state
law
claims
against
Defendants.”

In
their
motion
to
strike
the
complaint,
the
defendants
claim
that
the
plaintiffs’
proposed
damages
class
is
improper
because
precedent
states
that
no
“class
action
is
proper
unless
all
litigants
are
governed
by
the
same
legal
rules.”
The
defendants’
reasoning
behind
this
argument
is
that
the
proposed
class
spans
several
different
states
and
local
jurisdictions,
meaning
that
they
are
subject
to
different
laws
in
different
geographic
areas
of
the
proposed
class.
 

It
remains
to
be
seen
how
the
judge
will
rule
on
these
motions,
but
the
defendants
are
most
likely
viewing
the
dismissals
of
Howard
Hanna
and
HomeServices
as
a
source
of
positivity.

Related