ST. LOUIS — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a Missouri federal court’s approval of class-action settlements that added $110.6 million for people affected by alleged anticompetitive rules in the real estate industry, rejecting appeals from four objectors who sought to undo the broader resolution.
The September 1 decision concerns settlements in the consolidated Gibson litigation, which followed the related Burnett case against the National Association of Realtors.
The appeals court said the National Association of Realtors’ rules led to inflated home costs and harmed home buyers and sellers, leaving people to avoid those harms either by listing and selling homes without a broker or by finding a broker unaffiliated with a NAR multiple listing service.
The settlements involved other real estate brokerage companies and multiple listing services accused of participating in the same conspiracy.
They produced an additional $110.6 million for the class, bringing the total amount collected through the broader agreement to $1,017,687,754, according to the court. Each defendant also agreed to the same practice-change relief addressed in the court’s earlier Burnett opinion.
The appellate court said the class response was overwhelmingly positive: 46 class members opted out and 11 submitted objections. Four objectors appealed after the district court approved the settlements and expanded the class nationwide.
The objectors were Benny D. Cheatham, Monty March, Robert Friedman and James Mullis. March and Friedman argued that their New York classes were different from the broader class.
Mullis argued that state-law indirect-purchaser claims were distinct from the other claims covered by the settlement. The objectors also challenged the amount of damages, alleged collusion in the settlements, and argued that a requirement for objectors to appear in person violated due process.
The district court found that the differences cited by the New York objectors between rules involving the National Association of Realtors and the Real Estate Board of New York were not material enough to create a separate factual basis.
It also found that state-law indirect-purchaser claims arose from the same conspiracy and factual predicate and could properly be released, as could claims involving defendants’ agents, affiliates and franchisees.
In a per curiam opinion, the three-judge Eighth Circuit panel said the arguments closely mirrored those raised in Burnett and adopted the legal analysis, facts and discussion from that earlier decision.
The court held that the district court properly evaluated whether the settlements were fair, reasonable and adequate under the federal rules governing class actions.
The appeals court said the district court considered the adequacy of class representatives and class counsel, whether negotiations were conducted at arm’s length, the costs, risks and delays of continued litigation, the method for distributing relief, attorney-fee terms and whether class members were treated equitably relative to one another.
It also said the court did not improperly rely on a presumption favoring settlements.
The panel rejected the contention that the settlements improperly extinguished claims lacking an identical factual predicate.
It said the claims shared a common nucleus of operative fact: multiple-listing-service rules that drove up prices for home transactions.
The court said that connection, rather than geography or the particular listing service involved, supported the releases.
Finally, the court rejected the due-process challenge to the in-person appearance requirement.
It said due process was satisfied because class members received notice of the proposed settlements and could present their objections to the district court, which considered each objection on its merits.
The court affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlements in all respects.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit case number: 24-3473
