Los Angeles, California — A group of plaintiffs is contesting a recent ruling that dismissed their lawsuit, with their appeal filed in March 2025 seeking to challenge the decision made by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld. The judge found insufficient standing for the defendants affiliated with Move and said the court lacked personal jurisdiction over News Corp. and the National Association of Realtors (NAR).
In January 2025, the defendants initiated motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit. The latest legal maneuver from the plaintiffs centers on a motion for reconsideration that aims to overturn the dismissal order and deny the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
The plaintiffs argue that their request stems from the defendants’ failure to proceed with arbitration, which is supposed to be conducted with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). They contend that at the time the motion to compel arbitration was filed, the defendants were unable to fulfill their obligation due to an unrelated fee dispute with the AAA.
Relief is also being pursued due to what the plaintiffs describe as failures by the defendants to specify applicable arbitration rules on their website, which was cited as a basis for enforcing arbitration. They assert that real estate agents should have their disputes settled under the AAA’s Consumer Rules, while real estate brokers would need arbitration under the Commercial Rules.
Consequently, the plaintiffs are requesting a stay of their appeal to the Ninth Circuit, along with an extension of the briefing schedule regarding that appeal. They emphasize that following the initial ruling, they discovered that the defendants were not eligible to engage in arbitration with the AAA.
If the court does not reject the motion to compel arbitration, the plaintiffs believe the defendants should absorb the costs associated with arbitration. The filing highlights the burden of arbitration costs, which can be exorbitant, particularly for individual real estate agents who may struggle with financial pressures from both legal fees and personal expenses.
It is noted in the filing that arbitration has evolved into a costly venture where arbitrators charge hefty fees, making it easier for larger corporations like the defendants to outlast individuals seeking justice. The plaintiffs stress that for them, deciding between pursuing legal claims and providing for their families creates an inherent unfairness.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs draw attention to ambiguities in the arbitration provisions outlined in the defendants’ terms and conditions, claiming lack of clarity regarding who must cover arbitration expenses. They argue that this ambiguity should be interpreted against the defendants, who have established non-negotiable terms.
As the case unfolds, the defendants have not responded to inquiries for comment about the situation.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI; the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested to be removed, retracted, or corrected by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.