Pennsylvania Ag Moves To Dismiss Moore Membership Suit Against Nar

Another antitrust lawsuit related to the National Association of Realtors‘ (NAR) three-way membership agreement is facing a motion to dismiss.

On Thursday, the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission, which is a defendant in the Moore suit, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim. The motion was written by Pennsylvania Attorney General David W. Sunday. 

Filed in late November in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh by former Pennsylvania Association of Realtors (PAR) president and Howard Hanna Real Estate Services agent W. Preston Moore, the suit accuses the Pennsylvania commission (referred to as the Commonwealth defendant) of discriminating against Moore in violation of civil rights statutes. The commission is also accused of antitrust violations, breach of contract and violation of due process. 

In addition to the real estate commission, the Moore suit also lists NAR, PAR, the New York Realtor Association, New Jersey Realtors and the Black Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives as defendants.

Several PAR officials are also named as defendants. They include CEO Michael McGee, current president Bill Lublin, president-elect David Dean, chief legal officer Hank Lerner and chief growth officer Kevin Juliano.

PAR members Albert Perry III and Chris Beadling are also named, as is as Katheryn L. Simpson, an attorney at Mette, Evans & Woodside, which represents the state Realtor associations in New York and New Jersey.

While the commission acknowledges the four claims made against it, the attorney general feels that Moore “does not make any factual allegations against the Commonwealth Defendant.”

“The only mention of the Commonwealth Defendant is under the heading of ‘PARTIES’ where Plaintiff states they were named for their roles in the regulatory and political context of this matter,” the filing states. 

The motion also claims that it is “insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for a complaint to merely hypothesize about a defendant’s personal involvement without any factual allegations to support the hypothesis.”

Additionally, the commission claims that Moore’s allegations against it are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 

“Indeed, as a part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Defendant is entitled to the immunity offered to the States by the Eleventh Amendment,” the filing states. 

According to the filing, the only ways that a state may be sued in federal court are if the state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, or if Congress has made it unmistakably clear in either the language of a statute or in its legislative history that its intention is to permit such suits. The commission claims that neither of these things have occurred. 

Motions to dismiss are pending in four other antitrust suits filed against NAR that contain similar allegations.