Gibson Plaintiffs Continue To Push Back Against Exp, Weichert Settlements

Despite their settlements gaining preliminary approval, eXp World Holdings and Weichert Realtors may still be in the commission lawsuit hot seat. 

The two brokerage defendants negotiated their nationwide settlements with the plaintiffs in the Hooper suit, much to the chagrin of the Gibson suit plaintiffs. The Gibson plaintiffs almost immediately took issue with the Hooper settlement terms, calling them “sweetheart deals” while claiming that eXp and Weichert engaged in a reverse auction to arrive at their respective settlement amounts of $34 million and $8.5 million.

Although Judge Mark H. Cohen, who is overseeing the Hooper suit, granted preliminary approval to the settlements in May, the Gibson plaintiffs want to bring eXp and Weichert back to the negotiating table.

After their settlements gained preliminary approval, eXp and Weichert filed motions to stay the Gibson proceedings. In their filings, they argue that if their settlements gain final approval, that will “extinguish” the claims of the Gibson plaintiffs. But the Gibson plaintiffs have said not so fast.

Last week, in a response to the motions to stay, the Gibson plaintiffs reiterated their claims that the Hooper settlements are “inadequate reverse-auctions,” and they note that Cohen has not yet considered the Gibson plaintiffs’ arguments. The response also claims that the Gibson plaintiffs “would suffer significant prejudice if all proceedings were stayed.”

Judge Stephen R. Bough, who is overseeing the Gibson suit and presided over the Sitzer/Burnett trial, has previously refused to grant eXp’s motion to stay the Gibson suit. That motion was filed after eXp announced its successful negotiation of a settlement with the Hooper plaintiffs. 

In his order denying the earlier motion, Bough wrote that he feels the Gibson plaintiffs raised “genuine issues of potentially questionable behavior regarding eXp’s Hooper settlement,” which he claimed warranted further discovery. 

“Given the alleged lack of financial considerations and quick settlement in the later-filed Hooper case, granting a stay would not serve in the best interests of justice due to the possible irreparable harm resulting from Plaintiffs’ claims in this case being estopped due to a binding, underfunded class settlement in Hooper,” Bough wrote.

“This is evidenced by eXp’s statement that ‘the proposed class settlement with the Hooper Plaintiffs will cover claims that are substantially similar to the class asserted in the present matter,’ and therefore ‘Hooper Plaintiffs subsume the class definition.’”

The Gibson plaintiffs had previously attempted to intervene in the Hooper suit but were denied by Cohen.