Court advised to reject legal bid to compel NAR rule enforcement

"The rules in question relate to the mandatory display of a listing broker's contact information on the listing page in an IDX display, the commission lawsuit mandate for buyer agency agreements and the prohibition of MLS platforms from allowing users to search or filter search results by the name of the listing broker or agent, or by the amount of compensation offered. By allegedly refusing to enforce these rules, Zea claims that the defendants have competitively disadvantaged his discount-brokerage business."

"In filings, Zea claimed that he filed the lawsuit as a last ditch attempt to get the defendants to enforce their own policies after roughly a year spent filing ethics complaints, submitting compliance requests and communicating with the defendants. In his recommendation, Matthewman notes that the evidence presented by Zea shows that he waited almost a full year between drafting his first email to the defendants and filing his motion for preliminary injunction. This delay significantly undermines his assertion of irreparable harm, Matthewman wrote."

"Despite this assertion, Matthewman continues on to examine Zea's argument that he will suffer harm in the future in the form of lost referrals and potential customers if the defendants continue to flout their own rules. However, the magistrate judge says that this argument is not strong enough, writing that the plaintiff has failed to present any evidence whatsoever to support his contention that he will suffer future loss of customers and good will. Thus, even if he had timely filed his Motion, he has not established irreparable harm, Matthewman added."

Zea alleges defendants failed to enforce MLS rules requiring listing broker contact information display, a commission disclosure mandate, and prohibiting search by broker name or compensation, disadvantaging his discount brokerage. Zea pursued ethics complaints, compliance requests, and communications for roughly a year before filing suit and seeking a preliminary injunction. Magistrate Matthewman found that Zea waited almost a full year between initial contact and filing, which undermines claims of immediate, irreparable harm. Matthewman also found no evidentiary support that Zea will suffer future loss of customers or goodwill, and concluded irreparable harm was not established.

Read at www.housingwire.com