It appears that Howard Hanna Real Estate Services‘ reprieve from the Moratis commission lawsuit — formerly known as the Spring Way suit — will be short-lived.
Last week, the plaintiffs in the suit filed a notice of appeal of a lower court’s decision to dismiss both Howard Hanna and West Penn MLS from the suit with prejudice. The appeal was filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Earlier this year, David Gringer, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Hale, which is representing Howard Hanna in the commission lawsuits, noted that the differences between the copycat suits most likely contributed to the lower court’s decision to dismiss his client.
“The first maxim of real estate is that all real estate is local. I’m in New York and I know the real estate market here is very, very different than it is outside of Pittsburgh, or in Ohio, or in Missouri. And so, you can’t look at a few counties in Missouri and extrapolate a national practice. In fact, different regions do things differently,” Gringer said in addressing the differing outcomes between the Sitzer/Burnett suit and the Moratis suit.
“In West Penn MLS, they had a different set of rules and different practices than those at issue in Missouri,“ he said. “The plaintiff tried to argue that the different practices were the same as those in Missouri, but to the great credit of the court, he took the time to look at the arguments and realized that this isn’t how things are done here.”
In a statement emailed to HousingWire, Gringer expressed skepticism over the merits of the plaintiffs’ appeal.
“The Court of Appeals has already observed on its own that there are threshold issues with the appeal,” Gringer wrote. “If it is allowed to proceed, we expect that the fundamental legal defects with Plaintiffs’ theories will be apparent and the decision below will be affirmed.”
Despite the appeal, Howard Hanna and its legal team have decided to move forward with their dismissal strategy, filing a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice in the Davis homebuyer suit. In its filing submitted last week, the family-owned firm argues that the complaint doesn’t have antitrust standing and that it fails to state a claim.
