After years of filings, hearings and appeals, the 8th Circuit’s Aug. 19 decision upholding the Sitzer | Burnett settlement set off another wave of activity in the long-running commission litigation.
Less than two weeks later, the appeals court affirmed another $110.6 million in brokerage settlements in Gibson / Umpa, while settlement objectors made another push for rehearing and judges overseeing several related cases extended stays or asked for fresh updates as they wait for the appellate process to run its course.
More than $1 billion in commission settlements are now intact, along with the industry practice changes that followed the litigation. But several cases remain unresolved, and key questions remain about rehearing, appellate mandates and separate settlement appeals before the industry can fully turn the page on the commission lawsuits.
Here’s where the major cases stand now — and what to watch next.
Sitzer | Burnett
Status: On Aug. 19, the 8th Circuit affirmed final approval of the National Association of Realtors’ settlement, but the appellate process is not yet over.
Latest appellate move: Settlement objectors Robert Friedman and Monty March have filed separate petitions seeking either panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. Friedman filed on Sept. 1 and March followed on Sept. 2. Both are asking the court to revisit its Aug. 19 ruling, though rehearing — especially en banc review — could be considered a long shot.
What the objectors are arguing: Both challenges focus on New York claims involving the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY). Friedman and March argue the panel used the wrong standard of review in deciding whether those claims arose from the same “identical factual predicate” as the nationwide commission claims resolved through the NAR settlement. They also point to earlier statements that REBNY operates independently from NAR and maintains its own rules, arguing the New York claims should not have been swept into the nationwide release.
Both petitions also renew a due-process challenge involving Judge Stephen Bough’s requirement that objectors personally appear at settlement hearings.
Trigger / next step: The 8th Circuit can request responses, grant rehearing or deny the petitions. The rehearing requests keep the appellate process active and delay issuance of the mandate while they are pending.
What to watch now: The immediate question is whether the 8th Circuit shows any interest in revisiting its Aug. 19 ruling. Burnett is still keeping several related commission cases on hold. In Burton, for example, a Sept. 3 order continued the stay until the 8th Circuit issues its mandate and the remaining appeal options are exhausted. The timing of rehearing, the mandate and any potential Supreme Court petition could therefore determine when those cases move again.
Gibson / Umpa
Status: The 8th Circuit affirmed the brokerage settlements in Gibson / Umpa on Sept. 1, leaving those deals intact. The appellate court said the appeals substantially overlapped with the challenges it rejected in Burnett and incorporated much of its Aug. 19 reasoning.
Latest appellate move: In a published opinion, the 8th Circuit rejected objections to the settlements and concluded: “For all these reasons, and those expressed in Burnett, we affirm.” The settlements at issue added about $110.6 million to the broader pool of commission settlements.
What remains live: The Sept. 1 ruling did not end Gibson/Umpa entirely. Plaintiffs clarified in a separate filing the same day that they are seeking class certification against just two remaining class defendants — Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Crye-Leike. All other defendants have entered class settlements through Gibson, Sitzer or Hooper.
There are also individual claims still pending. Named plaintiffs Lauren Criss and John Meiners opted out of the settlements with eXp and Weichert and continue to pursue individual claims against those companies. The plaintiffs who remain in the class have separately objected to the eXp and Weichert settlements, which are being challenged on appeal.
What plaintiffs say: Plaintiffs argue that settlements with other alleged co-conspirators do not prevent them from seeking the full amount of alleged conspiracy damages from BHE and Crye-Leike under joint-and-several-liability principles. They point to Burnett itself, where plaintiffs presented evidence involving Anywhere and REMAX even after those companies had settled.
What to watch now: The immediate district-court issue is whether Judge Stephen Bough certifies a class against BHE and Crye-Leike and allows those claims to continue toward trial. Separately, the appellate window remains open for challenges to the Sept. 1 Gibson settlement ruling, with no rehearing petition filed as of Sept. 4, while the eXp and Weichert settlements are traveling on their own appellate track through the 11th Circuit.
Burton v. NAR
Status: The case remains on hold as to NAR while the Burnett settlement continues through the appellate process.
Latest order: On Sept. 3, Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin entered an amended order continuing the stay of all deadlines as to NAR until the 8th Circuit mandate issues and all appellate options have been exhausted or the time to pursue them has expired.
Trigger: Burton is now expressly tied to full appellate finality in Burnett, not simply the Aug. 19 affirmance. The court also ordered the parties to file a status report 30 days after the deadline for any Supreme Court petition if none is filed, or 30 days after final resolution if further appellate review is pursued.
What to watch now: Friedman and March’s rehearing petitions mean Burnett has not yet reached that point of finality, so Burton remains on hold.
Whaley v. NAR
Status: Similar to Burton, the Whaley case remains stayed while the appellate process surrounding the nationwide NAR settlement plays out.
Latest order: On Sept. 2, Judge Anne Traum granted the parties’ joint request to extend the stay through exhaustion of appeals from final approval of the nationwide settlement. The parties must file a status report within 10 days after the 8th Circuit mandate issues and all appellate options have been exhausted or the time to pursue them has expired.
Trigger: Whaley is tied explicitly to full appellate exhaustion rather than simply the issuance of a particular ruling. Rehearing proceedings, the mandate and any further appellate review can all affect when the case resumes.
What to watch now: With Friedman and March both seeking rehearing, the appellate process remains active and the Whaley stay remains in place. The next meaningful development should come only after the Burnett appellate path becomes substantially clearer.
Hooper v. NAR
Status: Hooper is yet another case that remains stayed as to NAR, while separate appeals involving its settlements with eXp and Weichert are proceeding in the 11th Circuit.
Latest filing: On Aug. 31, the parties jointly asked the Northern District of Georgia to continue the stay as to NAR until all appeals from the Burnett settlement are exhausted. They noted that although the 8th Circuit affirmed the settlement on Aug. 19, rehearing remained available and the mandate had not yet issued.
Judge Mark Cohen granted that request on Sept. 1, continuing the stay until all appeals from final approval of the NAR settlement are exhausted. The parties must file a status update within 14 days after the mandate issues and all appellate options have either been exhausted or expired.
Trigger: As to NAR, the trigger is full appellate finality in Burnett — not merely the Aug. 19 affirmance. The rehearing petitions filed by Friedman and March therefore keep that portion of Hooper on hold for now.
Separate appellate track: Hooper also has its own appeal pending in the 11th Circuit involving the district court’s final approval of settlements with eXp and Weichert. Those settlements do not become effective until the appellate process is complete and any affirmance is no longer subject to further review.
What to watch now: Hooper is a good example of how the commission litigation has splintered into multiple appellate tracks. The NAR claims are waiting on Burnett finality in the 8th Circuit, while the eXp and Weichert settlements are being tested separately in the 11th Circuit.
Wang v. NAR
Status: The Wang case remains stayed, but plaintiff Hao Zhe Wang is trying to lift the stay as to eXp World Holdings.
Latest order: On Sept. 4, Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger did not rule on Wang’s request to lift the stay and instead ordered eXp to file a status report by Sept. 10 on the current status of the Burnett appeal.
Earlier filings: Wang moved in August to lift the stay as to eXp and sought limited expedited discovery into whether he is covered by eXp’s separate Hooper settlement, how notice of that settlement was handled and the circumstances surrounding eXp’s Hooper negotiations.
EXp opposed the request on Aug. 28, arguing that the 8th Circuit’s Aug. 19 Burnett affirmance could moot Wang’s motion because the existing stay was tied to a determination in that appeal. EXp also said that if the Burnett stay expires, it expects to seek another stay pending the separate 11th Circuit appeal of the Hooper settlement.
What Wang said: Wang argued that his dispute is not moot because eXp itself has signaled it plans to seek another stay. He also said he never received notice of the Hooper settlement and wants the court to resolve whether that settlement extinguished his claims against eXp.
What eXp said: EXp disputes Wang’s accusations, saying the Hooper settlement was publicly disclosed and that the Georgia court already found the settlement notice adequate and rejected allegations that the deal resulted from a reverse auction.
Trigger: The immediate next step is eXp’s Sept. 10 status report on Burnett. After that, Lehrburger will have a fresher record for deciding whether to lift the stay, continue it or consider another stay tied to the Hooper appeal.
What to watch now: Wang is one of the clearest examples of a plaintiff trying to move forward rather than simply waiting for settlement appeals to end. The Sept. 4 order also shows how the Burnett rehearing petitions are affecting proceedings elsewhere.
Grace v. NAR
Status: The Grace case remains stayed as to eXp while appeals of the separate Hooper settlement play out in the 11th Circuit. Windermere is on its own timetable.
Latest filing: In an Aug. 4 joint status report, plaintiff Christina Grace and eXp asked the Northern District of California to keep the case on hold as to eXp until the Hooper settlement becomes final. They also asked to push their next status report to May 11, 2027.
Trigger: The stay as to eXp depends on what happens with the Hooper settlement, which was designed to resolve similar claims in Grace and several other commission cases. The settlement does not take effect until the appeals are finished and the approval can no longer be challenged.
Separate appellate track: The Hooper settlements with eXp and Weichert are being challenged in the 11th Circuit. The May status report identified appeals filed by James Mullis and by Don Gibson, Jeremy Keel and Daniel Umpa from the March 31 final approval orders.
What to watch now: For eXp, the key action is in the 11th Circuit rather than the 8th. Windermere, meanwhile, remains subject to a separate stay through Sept. 16, when another status report is due.
Moehrl v. NAR
Status: Like others, the Moehrl case remains stayed, pending resolution of the Burnett appeal.
Latest order: On June 23, Judge LaShonda Hunt kept the stay in place and ordered the parties to file an updated status report by Sept. 21, or within 14 days after the Burnett appeal is resolved, whichever comes first.
Trigger: The June order does not define exactly what counts as “resolution of the Burnett appeal” — whether that means the Aug. 19 panel ruling or the point when rehearing and any further review are finished.
What to watch now: The rehearing petitions filed by Friedman and March make that distinction more important. Either way, the Sept. 21 status-report deadline should give the court and parties a chance to spell out what happens next.
Nosalek v. MLS PIN
Status: The case has reached final settlement approval and is effectively closed at the district-court level.
Latest major development: On Sept. 29, 2025, Judge Patti Saris granted final approval of the $3.95 million settlement with MLS Property Information Network. The settlement also required MLS PIN to remove the option to display offers of compensation to buyer brokers. The case was subsequently administratively closed.
Trigger: Unlike Burton, Whaley or Moehrl, Nosalek is not waiting on Burnett finality to determine whether it can move forward. The principal claims against MLS PIN have already been resolved through the approved settlement.
What to watch now: There appears to be little left to watch in Nosalek itself at the district-court level.
Reporter’s note: ChatGPT was utilized in organizing and reviewing court filings and timelines for this story. All substantive details were checked against court records before publication.
