Gibson v. National Association of Realtors
4:23-cv-00788
| W.D. Mo. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs in a class action (Gibson et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al.) allege wrongdoing involving real estate commission practices.
- Defendants Weichert and eXp reached separate settlements in a related case (1925 Hooper LLC v. NAR) pending in the Northern District of Georgia, subject to final court approval.
- Weichert and eXp requested a stay of the present case pending the final settlement approval in the Hooper case, arguing judicial economy and avoidance of wasteful discovery.
- Plaintiffs opposed, asserting ongoing discovery was necessary because Weichert and eXp's information was vital to prove damages and the alleged nationwide conspiracy, regardless of the Hooper settlement outcome.
- The judge previously allowed discovery to proceed, partly due to concerns about a potential 'reverse auction' settlement in Hooper and no clear ruling yet on some of plaintiffs' objections to that settlement.
- The Court considered the relevant procedural posture, discovery progress, and the parties’ respective interests before ruling on the motion to stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay proceedings pending Hooper approval | Discovery is necessary for damages, relevance persists even if dismissed | Forcing discovery is prejudicial and moot if Hooper settlement approved | Stay denied |
| Effect of Hooper 'reverse auction' allegations | Court should consider evidence of reverse auction; Hooper hasn’t addressed yet | Hooper court found the settlements likely meet criteria for approval | Not grounds for stay |
| Prejudice or hardship from continuing this case | Prejudice to plaintiffs if denied discovery; relevant transactions needed | Prejudice to defendants from duplicate discovery/briefing | No clear hardship shown |
| Stage of current case/progress of discovery | Discovery already underway, search term negotiations in progress | Early stages, no upcoming deadlines before approval hearing in Hooper | Discovery can continue |
Key Cases Cited
- Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013) (court's inherent power to control its docket, including stays)
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (party seeking stay must show clear hardship or inequity)