NAR Seeks Dismissal of Pennsylvania Antitrust Lawsuit Filed by Broker

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has moved to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit filed against the organization in Pennsylvania, marking the latest legal challenge involving the influential real estate trade group. According to HousingWire, NAR, along with the Pennsylvania Association of Realtors, Greater Lehigh Valley Realtors, and two executives, Allyson Lysaght and Justin Porembo, submitted a motion on Monday to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that it failed to substantiate its claims.

The case, originally brought in October by Maurice Muhammad, a broker at Progressive Realty, alleges that NAR and its co-defendants engaged in actions that violated federal civil rights laws and antitrust statutes. Per HousingWire, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of creating a monopolistic system, breaching contracts, and employing discriminatory practices that targeted minority real estate professionals.

Muhammad’s complaint includes allegations of selective enforcement of professional rules, unequal disciplinary measures, and exclusion of minority professionals from leadership roles within Realtor associations. Despite the variety of claims, the defendants argue that the lawsuit lacks factual evidence to support these allegations. According to their motion, the complaint “does not plead any facts to support wrongdoing by any Defendant, let alone a plausible claim for relief.”

Related: National Association of Realtors Faces New Antitrust Lawsuit Over Membership Rules

The motion also disputes the claims of discrimination and due process violations, arguing that Muhammad’s allegations are “broad conclusions” without specific incidents or actions cited as evidence. Furthermore, the motion contends that the complaint does not explain how the due process protections of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments would apply to private entities such as NAR and the other defendants.

Per HousingWire, the defendants also challenged Muhammad’s accusations of contract breaches, stating that the lawsuit failed to identify specific contractual provisions or explain how they were violated. The motion asserts that the complaint contains “no facts supporting a theory of anticompetitive harm,” a necessary component for claims under federal antitrust laws like the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

Source: HousingWire