NAR settlement faces another legal appeal

Judge Stephen R. Bough’s ruling that granted final approval to the National Association of Realtors‘ (NAR) commission lawsuit settlement agreement is facing yet another appeal. On Tuesday, Robert Friedman filed an appeal of Bough’s ruling with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Friedman had previously filed a copycat commission lawsuit in New York in December 2023, but he voluntarily dismissed it a month later. Like Monty March, the lead plaintiff of the other New York-based commission lawsuit, Friedman filed an objection to NAR’s settlement in late October.

In his objection, Friedman took issue with the use of a nationwide settlement class. He claims that the allegations he made against the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and NAR were completely separate, writing that “nothing in the record of proceedings of any action involving the NAR conspiracy supports the release of claims involving REBNY and the RLS.”

Friedman joins March and the Burton commission lawsuit plaintiffs in filing appeals.

While other objectors have filed appeals, Hao Zhe Wang this week filed a motion for reconsideration and an evidentiary hearing. In his objection, Wang says he questions the “earnestness of the class counsel in this case in enforcing the series of settlements the Court already approved earlier.”

At the final approval hearing for NAR’s settlement, which Wang attended in person, he claims that the counsel offered no details on “their enforcement effort of the earlier settlements and gave no reassurance about their future enforcement in the courtroom either.”

Due to this, Wang is requesting that the court withhold its final approval “until the class counsel come up with evidence of enforcement actions they already took and a concrete, verifiable plan and budget for future enforcement actions.”

In addition, Wang requested that the court revisit the declaration of Jennifer M. Keough, which discussed the progress of the class notice. According to Wang, the declaration showed “the design of the notice progress to be deeply flawed and racially discriminatory; the outcome the Keough Declaration reported proves to be racially discriminatory as well, as one may readily predict from the racist methodology of the notice regime the settlement administrator designed.”

Moving quickly, the court denied Wang’s motion a day later. An entry on the docket runner explains that motions for reconsideration “serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence,” and that based on this, the motion is “not warranted.”

Bough also denied University of Buffalo law professor Tanya Monestier’s motion to intervene. In her filing, Monestier noted that she was only filing the motion in order to preserve her right to appeal Bough’s ruling on the settlement.

In an entry in the docket runner, the court wrote that “intervention is not required, rather an objector need only timely file a proper objection with the district court to preserve their right to appeal.” Monestier has indicated that she plans to file an appeal of the NAR settlement.