Despite reaching a settlement agreement with the home seller plaintiffs in the Hooper (formerly Phillips) commission case, eXp World Holdings’ The legal problems are far from over.
On Tuesday, Laura Criss, Don Gibson, John Meiners and Daniel Umpa, the proposed class representatives in the combined Gibson/Umpa lawsuit, filed a motion to intervene and transfer the case to the trial court. United States District Court for the Western District of Missouriwhere it would fall under the supervision of Judge Stephen Bough.
In their motion, the petitioners challenge eXp’s settlement agreement, which the brokerage hopes will be approved as a nationwide settlement. The motion alleges that eXp’s agreement was negotiated with the Hooper plaintiffs “after engaging in protracted, unsuccessful settlement negotiations with intervening plaintiff’s counsel.”
“Based on the extensive experience of intervenors’ counsel in this litigation over the past five years – including a landmark $1.78 billion jury verdict – the settlement between Defendant eXp and Plaintiffs in this case is on unacceptable terms that do not provide sufficient relief for the rural class it purports to release. The settlement is significantly lower than comparable settlements negotiated by Intervenors’ advisors in light of eXp’s significant financial resources.”
The motion goes on to allege that eXp and Hooper plaintiffs “engaged in an impermissible ‘reverse auction’.”
“The Manual on Complex Litigation specifically warns courts to be wary of this practice, in which a defendant selects among attorneys for competing classes and negotiates an agreement with the attorneys willing to accept the lowest class fee ( usually in exchange for generous attorneys’ fees). ),’” the filing said.
In an emailed statement, an eXp spokesperson wrote that the motion seeks to influence which court will decide whether to approve eXp’s nationwide settlement.
“eXp is confident that the settlement will be found to be fair, reasonable and adequate,” the spokesperson wrote.
Attorneys for the Hooper plaintiffs did not return a request for comment.
In addition to questioning eXp’s settlement, Gibson/Umpa prosecutors also argue that a transfer of the case is warranted due to the first-filed rule.
“Under the initial filing rule, ‘where parties have filed concurrent or parallel actions in separate courts, the court in which the controversy was initially filed must hear the case,’” the filing said. “Therefore, when ‘two lawsuits involving overlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal courts, there is a strong presumption within the federal circuits that preference will be given to the forum of the first filed lawsuit under the first filed rule.’ ”
The petitioners argue that the first-filed rule applies here because the plaintiffs in Hooper have admitted that the core allegations in Gibson/Umpa are “substantially identical” to those raised in their lawsuit. The motion notes that the requested waiver is the same in both cases, that the class definition overlaps and that the class periods are virtually identical.
“Because the present case is essentially the same case, with the same allegations, and seeking the same damages against different named plaintiffs, the first-to-file rule dictates that this case must be transferred to the court in which Gibson is pending,” said the judge. movement states.
