1925 Hooper LLC v. The National Association of Realtors, 1:23-cv-05392

Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action alleging that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and several large real estate brokerages conspired to inflate broker commissions, violating federal and Georgia antitrust and consumer protection laws.
The suit claims NAR rules required home sellers to pay inflated commissions, including compensation to buyer’s brokers, as a prerequisite for listing on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS).
Plaintiffs have settled with several defendants, including eXp, Weichert, Higher Tech Realty, and Atlanta Communities; details of these settlements are under court consideration.
Proposed Intervenors (Gibson, Criss, Meiners, and Umpa), lead class representatives in a parallel lawsuit in Missouri (Gibson Action), moved to intervene and transfer this case, claiming inadequate representation in the settlement process.
Multiple related antitrust actions (Burnett and Moehrl) preceded this lawsuit, with overlapping class definitions and global settlements, but the four settling defendants here were not released in those agreements.
After their request to consolidate these cases via multidistrict litigation (JPML) was denied, Proposed Intervenors sought to intervene for the purpose of moving to transfer this action to Missouri.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Motion to Intervene	Intervenors were aware of interest earlier; timeliness should be measured from suit's filing or consolidation	Intervenors argue timeliness should be measured from knowledge of allegedly deficient settlements	Motion measured from when Intervenors knew of inadequate representation (settlement notice); timely filed
Commonality of Law and Fact	Substantive overlap with Gibson Action; favor consolidation/coordination	Conceded; both sides agree substantial overlap exists	Commonality satisfied
Prejudice from Allowing Intervention	Would disrupt settled agreements, prolong litigation, and undermine efforts	Intervenors claim no prejudice due to little progress or discovery, and only short delay after learning of interest	Intervention would prejudice existing parties by delaying or disrupting settlements
Adequacy of Existing Procedures	Current Rule 23 procedures are sufficient for Intervenors to protect their interests; no intervention needed	Intervenors fear settlements will bind class without proper representation unless they can intervene	Rule 23 fairness hearing and opt-out rights are adequate; intervention unnecessary

United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (timeliness of intervention based on discovery of inadequate representation)
Georgia v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242 (timeliness standards for intervention)
Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197 (discretionary factors in permissive intervention)
Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257 (timeliness measured from when intervenors knew interests were inadequately represented)
Grilli v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Inc., 78 F.3d 1533 (objector rights in class action settlements suffice in lieu of intervention)