As you may know, last month plaintiffs in some of the cooperative commission lawsuits filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) asking the panel to centralize and transfer various cases to the federal court in the Western District of Missouri, which is where the Burnett case was tried. Centralizing cases with overlapping factual issues into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL) can create a more efficient legal process that avoids inconsistent rulings and conserves the courts’ and parties’ resources.

Today, NAR filed our response to that motion. As we state in our filing, NAR supports centralizing 19 currently pending commission lawsuits, but disagrees with plaintiffs’ arguments that it would be most efficient to transfer the cases to the Western District of Missouri. Instead, NAR believes the best venue to hear the pending lawsuits is the federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. Here are some key points about our position:

• NAR recognizes that the outcome of the pending cases could have a significant impact on our industry, which employs around 1.5 million people and represents approximately 17% of our country’s GDP. In our view, all relevant cases should be included in any consolidation (including buyer and seller cases) and the Northern District of Illinois is best placed to address the industry-wide issues these cases present.
• NAR believes that the Northern District of Illinois is the most appropriate place for these cases to be transferred for several reasons, including: it is the district in which the original buyer-broker commission cases were filed and remain pending; it is the only district with both buyer and seller cases pending; it is the district with the largest number of cases pending; NAR headquarters — and therefore much of the discovery related to these cases — is in the district; the district has experience with NAR rules; and Chicago is a central location that is easily accessible for all parties.
• That said, we would not oppose the cases being transferred to the Eastern District of Texas, where the cases with the largest number of defendants are pending.
• Importantly, NAR’s proposal is different from what the moving plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested. They’ve asked that the JPML consolidate some — but not all — cases in the Western District of Missouri. We oppose that proposal because, among other reasons as stated in our motion, it would result in multiple parallel proceedings, which would defeat the purpose of consolidation.

Regardless of venue or the outcome of this JPML proceeding, NAR remains committed to supporting any association that is named in a copycat lawsuit.

We will follow up with you when the JPML issues its decision, which will happen after it hears argument on these cases in late March.