A month and a half after the plaintiffs in the Gibson copycat commission lawsuit fell out eXp World Holdings’ national settlement agreement in the Hooper lawsuit, eXp, along with other settlement defendants and the lead plaintiff, has returned to opposition.
In the comments submitted Thursday, Real Estate Brokerage in Atlanta Communities, Higher technical real estate, Weichert real estate agents from North AmericaeXp, and the lead plaintiff 1925 Hooper LLC.all shared their thoughts on why their lawsuit should not be transferred to Missouri and why the Gibson plaintiffs should not be allowed to intervene.
Atlanta communities and higher technology
In their joint motion, the two Georgia-based brokerage firms do not hesitate to write that although the proposed interveners “claim to stand for competition, their Motion to Intervene and Transfer Case is nothing but an attempt to monopolize the recovery of the class and above all: the lawyer’s fees.”
Furthermore, Defendants argue that it would be improper to allow counsel for the interveners and not the Court to examine the settlement agreements. They also write that an intervention and renegotiation of the terms of the settlements would be detrimental to “the parties and the class members by delaying and suspending resolution and damages for the claims herein.”
“Intervention and transfer would seriously disadvantage the parties and force them to undo months of settlement negotiations, discussions and resources devoted to resolving this matter; while also harming class members, delaying and denying the claims in question,” the response adds.
Atlanta Communities Real Estate also claims that transferring its settlements would be improper because “the Western District of Missouri has no personal jurisdiction over Higher Tech and AC, and it would be highly burdensome to the parties and witnesses, who are located and operate in Georgia.”
Weichert Real Estate Agents
Although Weichert informed the court of the settlement after Gibson’s plaintiffs filed their request, the defendant still had some strong words to share about the request, calling it an “extraordinary eleventh-hour attempt” to get the settlement approved for to be submitted to the court. the choice of the court of the interveners.”
The company cites the failed attempt to… commission lawsuitsnoting that the Multi-District Litigation panel ruled that the cases should proceed separately.
The filing also emphasizes that prior to the settlements in the Hooper lawsuit, the intermediaries had not previously transferred the other cases to Missouri.
“The reason why intervenors are now belatedly seeking to transfer this case – and this case alone – is simple: settlements have now been reached in this court which, if approved, will not allow intervenors to collect additional attorneys’ fees and incentive awards. All of Plaintiffs’ baseless allegations of ‘collusion’ and ‘reverse auctions’ boil down to this simple fact.”
Weichert states in the filing that she believes this Court is more than capable of reviewing his settlement and that it is “confident that the settlement in this case – which was negotiated between experienced counsel with the assistance of a senior appointed local mediator and lawyer – will appear to meet that standard.”
The brokerage also takes issue with the proposed intermediaries’ claim of a “reverse auction,” which it calls an “extreme” accusation.
“Courts have specifically recognized the risk that objectors may use the ‘reverse auction’ label as a guise to attack settlements simply because it does not allow them to collect additional fees,” the filing said.
eXp World Holdings
Like Weichert, eXp, whose settlement sparked the entire debate, also cites the Multi District Litigation Panel’s ruling as a reason why transfer of the lawsuit would be inappropriate. Furthermore, according to eXp, the proposed intermediaries “ignored” the Hooper lawsuit while pursuing lucrative settlements in the Western District of Missouri.
“Only now – months after their own settlement efforts with eXp failed, but immediately after eXp reached a $34 million settlement with Hooper Plaintiffs – are intervenors showing interest in this case. It is clear that intervenors are seeking to transfer Hooper to the WDMO so that they can be in the best position to seize attorneys’ fees from any eXp settlement. The middlemen’s game jeopardizes the second-largest settlement amount revealed to date in any of the “second generation” commission cases filed since late 2023.
Like the other defendants, eXp also believes that the transfer of the lawsuit will prejudice and harm the parties in the Hooper case.
eXp also addressed the allegations that it was conducting a reverse auction, calling it “baseless,” noting that the claims came “despite this Court encouraging settlements and the settlement parties using two well-regarded mediators to come to terms with to reach a settlement.” length, on terms comparable to those in the settlements reached by the interveners themselves.”
1925 Hooper LLC
Although Hooper is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, the company agreed with the defendants’ arguments. In its filing, the plaintiff asserts that the intervenors’ objections to the settlement “can be fully addressed and resolved by this court during the settlement approval process.”
“Thus, no intervention or transfer is necessary to protect the purported interests of the proposed interventions,” the filing said.
Like the defendants, the Hooper plaintiff believes that transferring the lawsuit would be “an unnecessary waste of resources.”
It remains to be seen how the court will rule on the Gibson plaintiffs’ motion, but no other court, other than Judge Stephen R. Bough in Missouri, has ruled on settlement agreements for retainer cases.
