The digital brokerage argued Tuesday that its settlement wasn’t too small, and requested a courtroom to reject makes an attempt to pressure it again to the negotiating desk.
Whether or not it’s refining your corporation mannequin, mastering new applied sciences, or discovering methods to capitalize on the subsequent market surge, Inman Join New York will put together you to take daring steps ahead. The Subsequent Chapter is about to start. Be a part of it. Be a part of us and hundreds of actual property leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
EXp Realty on Tuesday pushed again towards criticism of its fee lawsuit settlement, saying in a courtroom submitting that the settlement wasn’t too small and that the deal must be allowed to proceed as the corporate meant.
The battle stems from eXp’s settlement, introduced in early October, to pay $34 million to settle its position in varied fee lawsuits. The corporate arrived on the deal through negotiations in a Georgia case referred to as Hooper. Because of this, eXp requested a decide to “stay,” or pause, its half within the litigation of a better-known Missouri case dubbed Gibson.
Nevertheless, final week the Gibson homeseller-plaintiffs claimed the corporate’s deal was too candy. They wish to pressure eXp to barter with them, and particularly requested the decide to disclaim the brokerage’s request to remain the Gibson litigation. In a courtroom submitting, they described eXp’s deal as an “improper sweetheart deal that is not fair or reasonable” and mentioned it was “a premature and cheap settlement.”
The subsequent chapter within the saga then started Tuesday, when eXp filed new courtroom paperwork defending its place. Amongst different issues, eXp argues within the submitting that there could be no unwell results from staying the Gibson case whereas the settlement is reviewed by the courtroom overseeing the Hooper go well with.
EXp additionally argues that the Gibson homeseller-plaintiffs can carry up their complaints in regards to the settlement within the Hooper courtroom. And, the submitting continues, the plaintiffs can also argue earlier than the Gibson courtroom in the event that they’re profitable in bringing the case again to Missouri.
The brokerage moreover “disputes” within the submitting the “idea that eXp should have paid more on a pro rata basis than other settling defendants given its cash reserves.” In different phrases, eXp doesn’t consider it acquired a sweetheart deal.
Nevertheless, eXp additionally argues that discussions in regards to the measurement of the deal are irrelevant to the corporate’s request to remain the Gibson case.
“Plaintiffs can raise those objections to eXp’s settlement with Judge Cohen or opt-out of the Hooper settlement if they do not like it,” the corporate mentioned within the submitting, referring to Mark Cohen, the U.S. District Court docket Choose for the Northern District of Georgia overseeing Hooper.
Lastly, eXp argues that case legislation just isn’t on the facet of the homeseller-plaintiffs. The corporate particularly claims that there’s no rule forcing a defendant to settle with the primary entity to sue in a class-action state of affairs. Put one other approach, eXp is claiming that it wasn’t required to go first to the Gibson plaintiffs slightly than negotiating with the individuals who initiated a special, later case — on this occasion, the Hooper plaintiffs.
The argument is a response to the Gibson plaintiff’s declare that eXp used what’s referred to as a “reverse auction,” a apply whereby a defendant selects attorneys amongst competing lessons and negotiates the bottom potential settlement quantity. That apply, the Gibson plaintiffs argued final week, allowed eXp to achieve a settlement settlement that was decrease than it in any other case would have been in the event that they have been required to barter with Gibson attorneys.
EXp, then, is making the argument that the concept of approaching completely different plaintiffs to get the most effective deal just isn’t towards the principles.
It stays to be seen how the courtroom may reply to the competing claims. However for its half, eXp concluded its new submitting by arguing that the courtroom ought to keep the Missouri proceedings and let the case transfer ahead in Georgia.
“In conclusion,” the submitting states, “plaintiffs have pointed to no prejudice to them or their case that would be caused by a stay as to eXp, and cited no cases that support their proposition that a stay should not be granted.”
Learn eXp’s courtroom submitting right here (if the paperwork don’t seem, refresh the web page):
