In a filing earlier this week, Home American Services They asked Judge Stephen Baugh, who is overseeing the Sitzer/Barnett Commission case, to deny the plaintiffs’ motion to enter judgment.
In a mid-March filing, the Sitzer/Barnett plaintiffs asked the court to order HomeServices of America, the only remaining defendant in the case, to pay $4.7 billion in damages. This is 88% of the triple damages awarded by a Missouri jury in October.
Home Services of America called the plaintiffs’ motion premature, noting that the court has not yet approved four other settlement agreements reached by other defendants in the case. A final approval hearing date for the settlement agreement in this case has been set for May 9, 2024.
The brokerage argued that if these settlements were rejected or challenged, the final judgment calculation would change. The plaintiffs said in their complaint that the damages were reached by tripling the original damages and subtracting the total amount of the settlement.
“The numbers penciled in by the plaintiffs as to the amount by which the jury award should be offset by the settlement are preliminary because the settlement is subject to prior approval by this court in order to ensure that the settlement takes place. “subject to objections from absent class participants and judicial review in accordance with “due process,” HomeServices’ filing states. “Plaintiffs’ attempts to treat settlements as final in nature reflect the fact that courts commonly reject class action settlements when reviewing them for fairness, reasonableness, and appropriateness.” It ignores the facts.”
Additionally, HomeServices wrote that it does not expect the approval process for the settlement agreement to proceed smoothly.
“These purported national settlements were negotiated with attorneys representing a small portion of the national population affected by the settlements,” the filing states. “And the Department of Justice has already opposed the settlement of similar claims in other cases. Therefore, the judgment plaintiffs are seeking from this court will necessarily be preliminary in relation to the issues at issue. Let’s go.”
The plaintiffs also pointed out in their motion that they are seeking an award of attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and interest on the damages at an annual rate of 5.4% starting November 1, the day after the judgment. Interest on the damages should begin accruing on the date Judge Baugh issues his final judgment, HomeServices said in its filing.
HomeServices’ filing states that the law requires plaintiffs to “demonstrate a risk of hardship if their claims are not granted,” which HomeServices claims has failed to do so. are doing.
“Plaintiffs have failed to point out the hardship or prejudice they would suffer if judgment was not entered until all claims against all parties to this case were fully resolved,” the filing states. . “We also cannot take into account the fact that, by mutual agreement of the parties and subsequent order of the court, the judgment cannot be enforced until 30 days after the court has resolved all post-trial claims. However, the preliminary documents have not yet been submitted.”Complete. Still, plaintiffs cannot enter into judgments with uncertain damages, and each settlement must first receive final approval. ”
The filing also stated that HomeServices does not understand why the plaintiffs would want to rush a final judgment, stating that the plaintiffs “do not have an appeal to rush” or that HomeServices ” I don’t think they intend to do that.” HomeServices is prejudiced by withholding the money it is owed because HomeServices is not entitled to receive the funds unless HomeServices’ appellate rights are successfully exercised. ”
Additionally, the brokerage said it has no immediate interest in an appeal as it is still processing post-trial motions.
In addition to post-trial motions, HomeServices is also awaiting a hearing on a writ filed in February. In its filing, HomeServices said: United States Supreme Court HomeServices then sought review of the Eighth Circuit’s August 2023 ruling that held it could not enforce arbitration agreements signed by its franchisee seller customers. The appellate court said this was because the contract signed by the seller was not signed directly by HomeServices.
