NAR urges courts to consider recent dismissal of membership suit 

Following the recent dismissal of one of several mandatory membership lawsuits entangling the National Association of Realtors over the past two years, the association is seeking to leverage the ruling in other outstanding cases.

Also in the courts, a judge ruled today that Hanna Holdings' settlement in a homebuyer commissions case can move forward.

The Hardy dismissal: On March 30, Judge Jonathan Grey of the U.S. the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that plaintiffs in the case challenging NAR's 3-way agreement rule had not provided ample evidence that defendants conducted business in an anti-competitive manner.

The lawsuit was filed in Aug. 2024 in response to requirements that agents be members of local, state and national associations to gain access to MLS data. In addition to NAR, defendants in the Hardy case included several state and local associations as well as Realcomp MLS.

Applying the ruling to other cases: Last week, defendants facing similar litigation in other states sought to wield the Hardy dismissal to bolster their own cases in court.

In filings on April 3, NAR and Realtor associations in Texas, California and Georgia pointed to the dismissal of the Hardy lawsuit as a "supplemental authority" that the respective courts should consider in their deliberations.

In California, defendants in Diaz v. Lodi Association of Realtors, Et Al., noted that the Hardy decision involved "similar claims and allegations," and suggested the ruling might be especially relevant as the court considered claims related to violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Central Valley Association of Realtors and the California Association of Realtors are also named as defendants in Diaz. The Eytalis case in Texas names the Texas Association of Realtors and the Wichita Falls Association of Realtors as defendants, while the Milko case in Georgia only names NAR.

Hanna settlement can move ahead: In the Pennsylvania commissions case known as Davis, Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania struck down the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on Hanna Holdings' move to join the Tuccori settlement.

The judge's Apr. 6 order means that Hanna can proceed with its deal in Tuccori.

Plaintiffs in Davis had tried to block the settlement, arguing that Hanna conducted a "reverse auction" in order to settle for "a bargain-basement price." The brokerage company agreed to pay $8.25 million to resolve antitrust claims brought by homebuyers — more than required by the Tuccori settlement's opt-in formula, Hanna previously noted in court filings.

Judge Beetlestone denied the preliminary injunction motion without prejudice, keeping a door open for the plaintiffs to revise and refile their claims against Hanna Holdings.

Hanna Holdings is one of several firms — including Anywhere Real Estate and The Real Brokerage — to opt into Tuccori. Plaintiffs in another homebuyer commissions case, Batton, unsuccessfully tried in February to prevent the Anywhere deal from moving forward and have now filed an appeal.