Exp, Weichert Say Gibson Plaintiffs’ Motion Is All About Attorneys’ Fees

A month and a half after the plaintiffs in the Gibson copycat commission lawsuit took issue with eXp World Holdings’ nationwide settlement agreement in the Hooper suit, eXp, along with other settling defendants and the lead plaintiff, have fired back in opposition.

In responses filed on Thursday, Atlanta Communities Real Estate Brokerage, Higher Tech Realty, Weichert Realtors of North America, eXp, and the lead plaintiff 1925 Hooper LLC., all shared their thoughts as to why their suit should not be transferred to Missouri and why the Gibson plaintiffs should not be allowed to intervene.

Atlanta Communities and Higher Tech

In their joint motion, the two Georgia-based brokerage firms don’t hold back writing that while the proposed intervenors “claim to champion for competition, their Motion to Intervene and Transfer Case is nothing but an attempt to monopolize the class’s recovery and especially, the attorneys’ fees.”

Additionally, the defendants claim that it would be improper to allow the intervenors’ counsel and not the Court to scrutinize the settlement agreements. They also write that an intervention and renegotiation of the settlements’ terms would prejudice “the Parties and the class members by delaying and suspending resolution and relief for the claims here.”

“Intervention and transfer would highly prejudice the Parties, forcing them to undo months’ worth of settlement negotiations, discussions and resources spent seeking resolution of this matter; while also harming the class members, delaying, and denying relief for the claims at issue,” the response adds.

Atlanta Communities Real Estate also claims that transferring its settlements would be improper because “the Western District of Missouri lacks personal jurisdiction over Higher Tech and AC, and it would be highly inconvenient to the Parties and witnesses, who are based and operate in Georgia.”

Weichert Realtors

Although Weichert notified the court of its settlement after the Gibson plaintiffs’ filed their motion, the brokerage defendant still had some strong words to share about the motion, calling it an “extraordinary eleventh-hour attempt” to get the settlement submitted for “approval to the court of Intervenors’ choosing.”

The firm cites the failed attempt to combine the commission lawsuits, noting that the panel on Multi-District Litigation ruled that the cases should continue to proceed separately.

The filing also highlights that prior to the settlements in the Hooper suit, the intervenors had not previously moved to transfer any of the other cases to Missouri.

“The reason Intervenors now belatedly seek to transfer this case—and only this case—is simple: settlements have now been reached in this Court that, if approved, will not allow Intervenors to collect additional attorneys’ fees and incentive awards. All of Plaintiffs’ baseless accusations of ‘collusion’ and ‘reverse auctions’ boil down to that simple fact.”

Weichert states in the filing that it believes that this Court is more than capable to evaluate its settlement and that it is “confident that its settlement in this action—which was negotiated between experienced counsel with the assistance of a highly-regarded local mediator and jurist—will be found to meet that standard.”

The brokerage also addresses the proposed intervenors’ 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 for attacking settlements merely because they do not allow them to collect additional fees,” the filing states.

eXp World Holdings

Like Weichert, eXp, whose settlement began this whole debate, also cites the Multi District Litigation Panel’s ruling as a reason why transferring the suit would be inappropriate. Additionally, according to eXp, the proposed intervenors have “ignored” the Hooper suit “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 – do Intervenors take an interest in this case. Plainly, Intervenors seek to transfer Hooper to the WDMO to best position themselves to seize attorneys’ fees from any eXp settlement. Intervenors’ gamesmanship jeopardizes what is believed to be the second-largest settlement amount disclosed to date in any of the “second-generation” commission cases filed since late 2023.”

Similarly to the other defendants, eXp also believes transferring the suit will prejudice and harm the parties in the Hooper suit.

eXp also addressed the allegations of it holding a reverse auction, which it called “baseless,” noting that the claims came in “despite this Court having encouraged settlements and the settling parties’ having used two well-regarded mediators to settle, at arms’ length, on terms comparable to those in the settlements Intervenors themselves have reached.”

1925 Hooper LLC

Even though Hooper is the lead plaintiff in the suit, the firm agreed with the defendants’ arguments. In its filing, the plaintiff claims that the intervenors’ objections to the settlement “can be fully addressed and resolved by this Court in the settlement approval process.”

“Thus, neither intervention nor transfer is necessary to protect Proposed Intervenors’ purported interests,” the filing states.

Similarly to the defendants’, the Hooper plaintiff believe transferring the suit would be “an unnecessary waste of resources.”

It remains to be seen how the court will rule on the Gibson plaintiffs’ motion, however no other courts, besides Judge Stephen R. Bough in Missouri, have ruled on commission lawsuit settlement agreements.