UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: REAL ESTATE COMMISSION 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 3100

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:

* Plaintiffs in two Western District of Missouri actions move under 28 

U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Western District of Missouri. In their reply, 

movants state they alternatively support the Northern District of Illinois as transferee district. This 

litigation consists of nine actions pending in seven districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the 

filing of the motion for centralization, the Panel has been notified of fourteen additional actions 

pending in nine districts. All actions on the motion are brought on behalf of sellers of residential 

real estate, alleging various aspects of rules governing buyer broker compensation violate antitrust 

laws. Defendant the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is a national trade association of real 

estate brokers and agents. Plaintiffs in several of these actions allege that certain NAR rules 

require sellers to make a comprehensive, unilateral, and (in practice) non-negotiable offer of 

compensation to any broker representing potential buyers as a condition of listing their home on a 

multiple listing service (MLS). Plaintiffs allege that enforcement of this rule results in pricefixing, which has artificially inflated residential real estate broker commissions paid by home 

sellers.

Responses vary on the question of centralization, the appropriate transferee district, and 

which actions should be included in an MDL. In particular, the Panel has been notified of three 

Northern District of Illinois potentially-related actions that are brought on behalf of buyers of 

residential real estate (the home buyer actions).1

 The Panel also has been notified of two actions 

brought on behalf of home sellers that have been pending more than three years (the long-pending 

actions). Finally, there has been much argument over whether to include actions involving a nonNAR-controlled MLS in an MDL, including the Southern District of New York action and 

potential tag-along action (the REBNY actions).

* Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton took no part in the decision of this matter.

Additionally, one or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes 

in this litigation have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this 

decision.

1 The Panel also has been notified of one potentially-related action brought on behalf of both 

buyers and sellers of residential real estate.

Case 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ Document 203 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 736 Case TXE/4:23-cv-01104 Document 176 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

The Panel received a myriad of responses to the motion to centralize. Plaintiffs in five

actions and potential tag-along actions support or do not oppose the motion. Plaintiffs in two home 

buyer potential tag-along actions support centralization of all actions in the Northern District of 

Illinois and, alternatively, exclusion of the home buyer actions. Plaintiffs in the District of 

Massachusetts Nosalek potential tag-along action take no position on centralization, but request 

the Panel exclude their pending settlement with defendant MLS Property Information Network, 

Inc. (MLS PIN). Several defendants2 support or do not oppose centralization of all actions in the 

Northern District of Illinois, and most alternatively support the Eastern District of Texas. 

Defendant United Real Estate supports centralization of the actions on the motion in the Eastern 

District of Texas and, alternatively, the Western District of Pennsylvania. Defendants Compass, 

Inc., and Realty August, LLC support centralization of the cases brought by home sellers in the 

Western District of Missouri. Defendants eXp World Holdings, Inc. and eXp Realty, LLC, take 

no position on centralization and support the Eastern District of Texas as transferee district. The 

Anywhere defendants3 request centralization of the home buyer and home seller actions together. 

Plaintiffs in eight actions and potential tag-along actions oppose centralization and/or inclusion of 

their actions in centralized proceedings. Several of these plaintiffs alternatively support the 

Western District of Missouri and/or the Northern District of Illinois as transferee district, and one 

suggests exclusion of the home buyer actions. The HomeServices defendants4 oppose 

centralization and, alternatively, support centralization of all but the long-pending actions in the 

Eastern District of Texas and, alternatively, support centralizing all but the Eastern District of 

Texas actions in the Northern District of Illinois. The Agency defendants5 oppose centralization 

and, alternatively, oppose inclusion of the actions naming them. Defendant Bay Area Real Estate 

Information System, Inc., opposes centralization and, alternatively, supports the Eastern District 

of Texas as transferee district. Defendant West Penn Multi-List, Inc. opposes centralization and, 

alternatively, suggests exclusion of the Western District of Pennsylvania action and, alternatively, 

2 At World Properties, LLC; Christie’s International Real Estate, LLC; Ansley Atlanta Real 

Estate, LLC; Marin Association of Realtors and North Bay Association of Realtors; Weichert, 

Realtors, Realty ONE Group, Inc.; HomeSmart International, LLC; HomeSmart Holdings, Inc.;

PalmerHouse Properties, LLC; Solid Source Realty, Inc.; Redfin Corp.; and Hanna Holdings, Inc. 

Hanna Holdings alternatively supports centralization before any judge with strong antitrust and 

complex litigation experience.

3 Anywhere Real Estate Inc.; Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates, LLC; Coldwell 

Banker Real Estate LLC; Century 21 Real Estate LLC; Corcoran Group LLC; NRT Philadelphia 

LLC (d/b/a Coldwell Banker Realty).

4 HomeServices represents that this definition refers to HomeServices of America, Inc. and 

its various subsidiaries who are named as defendants in any of the cases at issue. 

5 The Agency IP Holding Co, LLC, Suitey, Inc. d/b/a The Agency, and The Agency Real 

Estate Franchising, LLC. 

Case 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ Document 203 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 737 Case TXE/4:23-cv-01104 Document 176 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

supports the Western District of Pennsylvania as transferee district. Responding defendants in the 

two Eastern District of Texas actions6 oppose centralization and, alternatively, suggest excluding 

the Eastern District of Texas actions and, alternatively, suggest centralization in the Eastern 

District of Texas or, alternatively, the Western District of Pennsylvania. Douglas Elliman Inc. and 

Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, oppose centralization and, alternatively, support centralization of

all but the REBNY actions and the home buyer actions in the Eastern District of Texas or the 

Western District of Pennsylvania and, alternatively, do not object to the Northern District of

Illinois. Defendant MLS PIN opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of the 

Nosalek potential tag-along action or requests the Panel allow its pending settlement to remain in 

the District of Massachusetts. Twelve groups of defendants7 and plaintiffs in the REBNY actions 

oppose their inclusion in the MDL. Certain defendants in the District of Arizona8 potential tagalong action argue the action should be excluded from an MDL or, alternatively, support the 

Northern District of Illinois as transferee district. Defendants in the Eastern District of Louisiana 

potentially-related action oppose centralization and, alternatively, suggest excluding the action 

naming them. Notably, a number of parties initially submitted responses supporting or opposing 

the Section 1407 motion but later withdrew them or changed their positions in the days leading up 

to (and, in some cases, after) the Panel’s hearing.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407 

centralization is not necessary at this time for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to 

further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions were filed in the wake of a 

plaintiffs’ verdict in an earlier filed case against NAR, the HomeServices defendants, the 

Anywhere defendants, Keller Williams Realty, Inc., and RE/MAX LLC. See Burnett, et al. v. 

Nat’l Assoc. of Realtors, et al., No. 4:19-00332 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2023), ECF No. 1294. Before 

and shortly after the motion for centralization was filed, nationwide class settlements were reached 

with Anywhere, Keller Williams, and RE/MAX, and they have been preliminarily approved. On 

March 15, 2024, NAR announced that it had reached a nationwide class settlement that will 

6 ATX WIR LLC; CitiQuest Properties, Inc.; Fathom Realty, LLC; Greenwood King 

Properties II, Inc.; JP Piccinini Real Estate Services, LLC d/b/a JPA; Keller Willis San Antonio, 

Inc.; Mark Anthony Dimas; MJHM LLC; Moreland Properties, Inc.; PenFed Realty, LLC; RFT 

Enterprises, Inc.; Side, Inc.; Square MB, LLC; Team Burns, LLC d/b/a Monument Realty; and 

Turner Mangum LLC. 

7 (1) Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, LLC, and Halstead Manhattan, LLC; (2) The 

Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. (REBNY) and the REBNY Residential Listing Service; (3) 

Level Group Inc.; (4) Serhant LLC; (5) CORE Group Marketing LLC, s/h/a Core Marketing 

Services LLC; (6) M.N.S. Real Estate NYC, LLC; (7) Sloane Square LLC; (8) R New York Real 

Estate LLC; (9) Tribeca Market Center, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams NYC, LLC; (10) Modlin 

Group LLC; (11) Leslie J. Garfield & Co., Inc.; and (12) Oxford Property Group LLP.

8 Arizona Association of Realtors, The Phoenix Board of Realtors, Scottsdale Area 

Association of Realtors, West and Southeast Realtors of the Valley Inc., Bortlock LLC, Retsy 

LLC, and Realty Executives LLC.

Case 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ Document 203 Filed 04/12/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 738 Case TXE/4:23-cv-01104 Document 176 Filed 04/12/24 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

“resolve claims against NAR, over one million NAR members, all state/territorial and local 

REALTOR® associations, all association-owned MLSs, and all brokerages with an NAR member 

as principal that had a residential transaction volume in 2022 of $2 billion or below.” According 

to NAR’s settlement announcement, NAR will pay $418 million over four years and put in place 

a new MLS rule prohibiting offers of broker compensation on the MLS. The agreement excludes 

the HomeServices defendants and, while the deal does not automatically include NAR-affiliated 

brokers with more than $2 billion in transactions or MLSs that are not owned by an NAR affiliate, 

it purports to include a mechanism for them to opt-in. Given the broad contours of this new 

settlement agreement and the changing landscape of the parties’ positions on centralization, we 

think it wise to deny centralization at this time. The settlement may well resolve at least some 

claims in this litigation, if not many. We cannot speculate on the number of parties and claims 

that will remain once this and any other settlements are approved. See In re Wells Fargo Mortg. 

Modification Litig., 437 F. Supp. 3d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2020). 

We deny this motion based on the procedural posture of the litigation and, therefore, do 

not reach the issue of whether centralization would otherwise be appropriate here if these

settlements had not been reached. After settlement proceedings conclude, and it becomes evident 

how many claims and parties still remain and the extent to which they overlap, if at all, it may be 

that formal centralization is needed or, perhaps, informal coordination efforts can adequately 

address any duplicative pretrial proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is 

denied.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Karen K. Caldwell

 Chair

Matthew F. Kennelly David C. Norton

Roger T. Benitez Dale A. Kimball

Madeline Cox Arleo

Case 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ Document 203 Filed 04/12/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 739 Case TXE/4:23-cv-01104 Document 176 Filed 04/12/24 Page 4 of 5
IN RE: REAL ESTATE COMMISSION 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 3100

SCHEDULE A

 Northern District of California

GRACE v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL., 

 C.A. No. 4:23−06352

 

 Northern District of Georgia

 1925 HOOPER, LLC, ET AL. v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,

 ET AL., C.A. No. 1:23−05392

 Western District of Missouri

GIBSON, ET AL. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL.,

 C.A. No. 4:23−00788

UMPA v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:23−00945

 Southern District of New York

MARCH v. REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:23−09995

 Western District of Pennsylvania 

SPRING WAY CENTER, LLC, ET AL. v. WEST PENN MULTI-LIST, INC., ET AL.,

 C.A. No. 2:23−02061

 District of South Carolina

BURTON v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL., 

 C.A. No. 7:23−05666

 Eastern District of Texas

QJ TEAM, LLC, ET AL. v. TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., ET AL.,

 C.A. No. 4:23−01013

MARTIN, ET AL. v. TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., ET AL.,

 C.A. No. 4:23−01104

Case 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ Document 203 Filed 04/12/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 740 Case TXE/4:23-cv-01104 Document 176 Filed 04/12/24 Page 5 of 5