Tuccori, Batton lawyers battle over fees 

With tens of millions of dollars at stake, attorneys in separate homebuyer commissions cases are vying for the same share of the settlement fund.  

Elsewhere in the courts, an investor suing Zillow filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the search giant's request for a review of the case, and the National Association of Realtors lost its bid to compel The Agency to release legal documents involving Mauricio Umansky, the firm's founder.

Tuccori, Batton attorneys want their payouts

A class-action lawsuit filed by homebuyers has garnered settlements totaling more than $120 million, and attorneys and plaintiffs involved in that case — and a related case — filed motions on Aug. 18 asking the court to approve nearly equal amounts in fees.

How we got here: Both cases were brought by homebuyers claiming a conspiracy among NAR and brokerage companies to inflate commissions. Batton — which comprises Batton 1 and Batton 2 — was originally filed in 2021, while Tuccori was filed in late 2023. Tuccori eventually absorbed several related cases, and per a settlement agreement in October 2025, created an opt-in route for defendants facing similar litigation to settle in Tuccori rather than in their original case.

Many defendants chose to do so, including several named in Batton 1 and 2: NAR, HomeServices of America, Anywhere Real Estate, Compass, United Real Estate, eXp, Hanna Holdings and Douglas Elliman.

Two other Batton defendants — REMAX and Keller Williams — settled with the Batton plaintiffs, and their combined settlements totaling $28.5 million received final approval earlier this month. Roughly $106 million in opt-in settlements in Tuccori are scheduled for a final approval hearing in November. 

Pushback from Batton: The plaintiffs in the Batton case have tried to block several of the opt-in deals, claiming that the settlements were the result of a "reverse auction," or an attempt by the defendants to find the best deal by negotiating in a related case. The Batton plaintiffs have so far been unsuccessful in halting any of the settlements, though an appeal against the Anywhere deal is pending.  

Dueling fee requests: With $120,334,500 in settlement funds collected in Tuccori, attorneys for the Tuccori plaintiffs — and the Batton plaintiffs — have asked the judge for nearly one-third of the fund to cover their legal fees. 

The "one-third" figure is common in class-action cases given the duration, scope and risk of such lawsuits for the firms that agree to take them on. In Tuccori, however, if each request were granted, roughly two-thirds of the fund would be funneled to lawyers: $37.9 million to the Tuccori attorneys, and $38.1 million, plus an additional $1.6 million in expenses, to the Batton attorneys.

The Batton attorneys argued that 95% of the settlement money paid into the global fund came from defendants who were litigated by the Batton counsel, not the Tuccori counsel, justifying their request for payment.

"Batton Counsel provided over five years of zealous litigation services bearing substantial risk of nonpayment for millions of dollars in time and expenses. Accordingly, although Batton Counsel oppose the Batton Defendants' settlements [in Tuccori], Batton Counsel are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses if the Court grants approval over their objection," the filing stated.

The Tuccori lawyers, meanwhile, argued that their request for $37.9 million is "amply justified" considering the time involved in securing more than two dozen settlements involving "months of complex settlement negotiations with the 26 Settling Defendants and Opt-In Settlors."

It is now up to the judge to decide how legal fees should be paid out. 

Investor opposes Zillow's SCOTUS request

In early June, Zillow filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (a request for review) in a case brought by an investor claiming the company made misleading statements about its now-defunct Zillow Offers program that resulted in significant losses for shareholders. 

The case, led by plaintiff Jeremy Jaeger, was filed in 2021 and granted class status in 2024. Zillow's petition is focused on that class-certification ruling, which the portal argues was granted inappropriately. Several business groups and legal policy organizations subsequently submitted amicus briefs supporting Zillow's petition. 

Last week, attorneys for the plaintiffs responded with a 50-page brief countering Zillow's arguments. 

A core claim in Zillow's petition is that the more optimistic statements it made about Zillow Offers early on were not directly contradicted by statements it later made when announcing it was shuttering the program. Citing precedent, the portal argued that class certification in a securities fraud case should be based on a direct contradiction, not statements relating to the same "general subject matter." 

The Jaeger response disputed that argument, noting that the appeals court — which upheld the class-certification ruling — never used the "general subject matter" phrase, and that another circuit court previously ruled that statements did not need to match perfectly, as Zillow argued.

The court is scheduled to review the petition, amicus briefs and responses in September.

NAR request for documents in PLS case denied

The National Association of Realtors cannot compel UMRO Realty Group — better known as The Agency — to hand over documents from unrelated lawsuits, a judge ruled this week. 

ThePLS.com, a pocket listings website co-founded by Mauricio Umansky, who also founded The Agency, revived its 2020 lawsuit against NAR in an amended complaint filed last year. The PLS claimed NAR forced the company out of the market when it implemented its Clear Cooperation Policy. 

Earlier this month, NAR asked the judge to force The Agency to release documents related to lawsuits previously filed against Umansky and UMRO, which were "named as defendants for an allegedly fraudulent real-estate transaction," according to NAR's request.

In a brief ruling filed Aug. 18, the judge denied the request, stating that it would place an "undue burden" on The Agency/UMRO, which was not a party to the case.