Gibson v. National Association of Realtors
4:23-cv-00788
| W.D. Mo. | Dec 5, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs in a class action allege claims against Weichert and others related to real estate conduct, with this case pending in the Western District of Missouri.
- Weichert reached a settlement in a similar class action (the Hooper case) in the Northern District of Georgia, which is currently stayed awaiting court approval.
- Weichert moved to stay the Missouri case pending approval of the Hooper settlement, arguing that the Hooper settlement could resolve or affect the Missouri claims.
- Plaintiffs opposed, alleging the Hooper settlement was inadequate and resulted from a "reverse auction," possibly undermining class interests.
- The court considered whether to grant the stay based on judicial economy, prejudice, and the possibility of collusive behavior in the settlement process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant a stay pending Hooper | Hooper settlement inadequate and prejudicial; possible "reverse auction"; more discovery needed | No prejudice; early case stage; Hooper subsumes current claims | Stay denied; no clear hardship or inequity shown |
| Merits of alleged "reverse auction" | Rapid and possibly collusive Hooper settlement warrants discovery | Denies improper conduct; emphasizes judicial efficiency | Further discovery on settlement circumstances ordered |
| Adequacy of proposed settlement | Hooper did not consider Weichert's finances, undermining value for class | Hooper allows opt-out; overlaps in plaintiff class | Discovery on settlement terms and negotiations ordered |
| Discoverability of settlement documents | Settlement negotiations are relevant and discoverable | No direct opposition to discovery articulated | Court orders in camera and sealed disclosure of documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (sets relaxed standard for courts to grant stays; requiring a clear case of hardship for stay)
- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 584 U.S. 732 (2018) (defining and warning about reverse auction settlements in class actions)
- Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirms court's inherent power to control its docket and issue stays)