Keel v. Washington Fine Properties LLC, 4:25-cv-00055

Plaintiffs, representing a nationwide class of home sellers, alleged antitrust violations related to real estate brokerage commissions tied to multiple listing services (MLS).
Multiple settlements were reached between plaintiffs and several real estate brokerages/MLS operators after extensive, multi-year litigation.
A comprehensive notice plan reached over 96% of class members, generating over 2.5 million claims with minimal objections or opt-outs.
The settlements provided monetary payments (adding to over $1 billion in combined recoveries across cases) and significant practice changes in the real estate industry.
The court granted final approval of these settlements, certified nationwide settlement classes, awarded attorneys’ fees, and overruled the only objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification & notice adequacy	Satisfied numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy; notice plan sufficient	May contest class certification or adequacy of notice	Court found class certification and notice requirements met
Fairness & adequacy of settlement	Settlements are fair, reasonable, result from arm's length negotiation, provide significant relief	Settlement amounts adequate given ability to pay; no liability admitted	Settlements approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate
Attorneys’ fees	One-third of the common fund is standard and justified by results/risk	May argue fees excessive	Awarded one-third of settlement fund as fees, finding reasonable per precedent
Objection to settlement	Settlement and notice are reasonable and objection lacks merit	Only one objector disputed settlement/class scope	Objection overruled; settlement approved

Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (strong judicial policy in favor of settlements, especially in complex litigation)
Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (standards for class action settlement approval)
Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (court’s discretion and settlement approval factors)
In re U.S. Bancorp Litig., 291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2002) (affirming reasonableness of one-third attorneys’ fees in large settlement)
In re Xcel Energy, Inc. Sec., Derivative & "ERISA" Litig., 364 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Minn. 2005) (collection of common fund fee awards and support for percentage method)