Realtor associations fight back against antitrust charges in Michigan
The National Association of Real Estate Agents (NAR) is opposing the antitrust lawsuit brought by three industry professionals against it and other real estate associations in Michigan.
On Friday, the defendants in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss the Hardy lawsuit because no claim was made. The suspects include NAR, the Michigan Association of Realtors (MARCH)Board of Realtors of Grosse Pointe (GPBOR), Greater Metropolitan Association of Real Estate Agents (GMAR), Board of Realtors of North Oakland County (NOCBOR) and RealComp IIa local MLS.
The Hardy lawsuit was filed in mid-August in the US District Court in Michigan by Douglas Hardy, Glenn Champion and Dylan Tent.
Hardy is the owner of Snyder Kinney Bennett & Keating LLCdoing business in southeastern Michigan as Signature Sotheby’s International Realty. In addition, Hardy and Champion are the primary brokers for Sotheby’s businesses operating in southeastern Michigan, while Tent is a representative of all agents and associate brokers at Sotheby’s in the region.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the requirement for all real estate agents and brokers in Michigan to be members of NAR, their state real estate brokerage association, and a local board of real estate agents violates antitrust law.
In their motion, the defendants allege that all of the defendants in the lawsuit “are voluntary membership organizations that provide numerous valuable benefits to their members.” They go on to say that the plaintiffs relate their anticompetitive allegations “only loosely and vaguely to the [membership] requirements for participation in Realcomp to which they object.”
The trade groups allege that the complaint fails to “articulate plausible theories establishing elements of any recognized legal basis, nor does it allege sufficient facts to support any claim Plaintiffs purportedly assert.”
“Plaintiffs’ allegations are so vague that they do not even meet the minimum standard for filing a notice. Even with careful dissection, defendants cannot identify which recognizable theories of harm plaintiffs intend to pursue,” the motion states.
“Plaintiffs have asserted antitrust claims, but do not allege any element of an antitrust claim, and even if they did, none of the speculative ‘damages’ suffered by Plaintiffs are as a result of harm to competition. Plaintiffs also allege a common law “conspiracy” claim, but do not allege an underlying tort, which is essential to a civil conspiracy claim. Finally, plaintiffs allege a separate tort – economic duress – that does not exist under Michigan law.”
In addition, NAR disagreed with plaintiffs’ claims that the business practice changes set forth in the commission settlement agreement eliminate their “guarantee” of commissions on certain real estate transactions. NAR argues that the plaintiffs do not demonstrate how the settlement could form the basis for their complaint.
Because the defendants believe there is no claim, they ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.
