R
EX, the former low‑fee brokerage that sued the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and Zillow for allegedly colluding to hide non‑MLS listings, has filed a new petition for rehearing with the U.S. Supreme Court after the Court declined to review its case last month. In the November 14 filing, REX argues that a ruling in its favor would restore competition in the multi‑trillion‑dollar residential market and close a loophole that lets trade associations use optional rules to achieve collusion. The petition cites a recent Seventh Circuit opinion that split the courts 3‑3 on whether optional rules can shield associations from antitrust liability, urging the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and to compel Zillow and NAR to respond to the rehearing request.

    The original September petition asked the Court to reconsider a March Ninth Circuit decision that upheld a lower court’s finding that NAR’s “no‑commingling” rule—now repealed—was optional and therefore did not constitute a conspiracy. REX contends that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, combined with the new Seventh Circuit split, creates uncertainty that could allow other competitors to exploit similar loopholes. By asking the Supreme Court to order a response and to reconsider the case, REX seeks to clarify the legal standard and prevent future antitrust violations.

    In a separate matter, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and Detective Jason LaFreniere have requested guidance from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on how to proceed with evidence in a sexual assault case involving former eXp agent Michael Bjorkman. Three weeks ago, plaintiffs in a lawsuit against current and former eXp executives and agents filed a motion to compel LaFreniere to produce documents and testimony. Bjorkman’s counsel previously objected to the release of a thumb drive containing the agent’s arrest report, photos, texts, voicemails, and recorded interviews.

    On October 23, LaFreniere was deposed by Bjorkman’s attorney, but the deposition was abruptly halted when the defendant’s counsel made statements that the deposition attorney described as “threats,” including a mention of a misdemeanor. The deposition was suspended as the situation escalated, and the attorney has asked the court for instructions on how to handle future depositions and evidence turnover. The request seeks the court’s involvement to ensure that the evidence is properly managed and that the proceedings can continue without further disruption.