On Monday, the Supreme Court denied a petition by HomeServices of America—a “Writ of Certiorari”—filed this past February and aimed at nullifying the Burnett ruling; however, plaintiffs won’t be able to claim $4.7 billion in damages as of right now either.
HomeServices of Americas’ initial 49-page petition to the Supreme Court was an attempt to potentially nullify Burnett, and each following copycat, as the franchise requested that the highest court overrule a lower court’s decision which allowed Burnett and other cases alike to move forward.
“While we firmly believed the arbitration issue we raised through our petition to the Supreme Court was an important matter, given the conflicting interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act at the circuit court level, we certainly understood the odds and the very limited number of cases the Supreme Court selects each session,” Executive Vice President of HomeServices Chris Kelly told RISMedia in a statement. “This represented just one of many paths we believed were important to pursue, and we continue to aggressively pursue a resolution of our involvement in the underlying litigation.”
Back in early 2023, the Eighth Circuit ruled that contracts that include mandatory arbitration provisions in listing agreements did not prevent recent homesellers from suing big brokerages or franchisors like HomeServices, writing that the company had effectively waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreements by litigating Burnett in court, and interpreting the arbitration clauses as narrowly applying to those who signed it—agents and sellers.
HomeServices had argued to the Supreme Court that Burnett should never have taken place to begin with, as homeseller plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements. However, as a result of the Supreme Court’s denial on Monday, HomeServices will seemingly lose that potential path to overturning the $1.8 billion verdict—though the company still has other avenues to appeal the case.
As the last remaining defendant still fighting in court, HomeServices still faces the possibility of paying the $1.8 billion judgment by itself—or a much higher number, if the judge in the case chooses to treble those damages, which plaintiffs recently urged him to do.
That won’t happen immediately, though, as the judge declined to immediately finalize the judgment as settlement discussions and post-trial proceedings continue to play out.
