Preliminary approval of the deal was granted on August 8, with a final hearing scheduled for November 26. In addition, the plaintiffs in Batton 2 are responding to motions to dismiss.
More than three months after announcing the settlement in the commission cases, HomeServices of America has now filed a preliminary plan with the court.
The plaintiffs in Sitzer/Burnett filed a motion for preliminary approval of the $250 million settlement, which was first announced on April 26.
According to court documents, the settlement fund now totals over $980 million as a result of proposed and finalized agreements between NAR and several major brokerage firms.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough, who is overseeing the Sitzer/Burnett and Gibson/Umpa cases, gave his preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 8 and scheduled a final hearing for Nov. 26 at 9:30 a.m. That’s just hours before the final hearing for the National Association of Realtors, which agreed to pay $418 million.
The HomeServices settlement was significantly larger than any other brokerage settlement and perhaps the most complicated. It protected 70,000 brokers from 51 brands and more than 300 franchisees. The next largest settlement came from Anywhere, which settled for $83.5 million before the Sitzer/Burnett trial.
What HomeServices had to say: “We were very pleased to work with plaintiffs’ representatives to submit our signed settlement to the Court for preliminary approval,” said Chris Kelly, Executive Vice President of HomeServices.
“Our firms and agents have made tremendous efforts to update our forms and practices in light of the changes in business practices that will take effect later this month. We are confident that the buyers and sellers we serve will have a smooth and positive experience as the industry adapts to these changes.”
More court news: The Illinois homebuyers in Batton 2 opposed the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The defendants – Compass, eXp, Redfin, Weichert Realtors and United Real Estate – filed motions to dismiss earlier this summer, raising a number of arguments, including lack of jurisdiction.
In their response to the motions for jurisdiction, attorneys for the homebuyers said the defendants targeted the Illinois real estate market “to intentionally collect ill-gotten gains from Illinois homebuyers who paid them artificially high broker fees and to induce those buyers to pay inflated real estate prices.”
If the case moves forward, the disclosure phase is unlikely to be completed until spring 2026.
