Kelsey Wolf, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL
SOFTWARE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (NO. II)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:23-md-03071
MDL No. 3071
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL CASES
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After months of diligent and substantive work, Plaintiffs and some Defendants presented
multiple settlement agreements for preliminary approval on apartment renters’ antitrust price-
fixing claims. On November 21, 2025, the Court preliminarily certified a renters settlement class
and found the terms of the settlement agreements to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” (Doc.
No. 1313 at 3). In May 2026, Plaintiffs presented an additional eleven settlement agreements for
preliminary approval. (Doc. No. 1396). Again, the Court certified a renters settlement class and
found the terms of the settlement agreements to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” (Doc. No.
1406 at 3). Based upon an incomplete, if not erroneous reading of the settlement agreements, the
Attorneys General of the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington
(“State AGs”) have filed a motion to intervene and to clarify or modify the preliminary approval
orders pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. (Doc. No. 1415). The motion is
ripe for decision. (Doc. Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, and 1448). For the reasons that follow, the
State AGs’ concern that the settlement agreements and orders of preliminary approval somehow
impair or impinge on their enforcement duties is more imagined than real because they do no such
thing. 	The settling parties have carefully and respectfully carved out from the settlement
agreements the State AGs’ authority to seek civil fines and injunctive relief. What the State AGs
cannot do is seek double or duplicate damages for those class members that will be compensated
Case 3:24-cv-01196 Document 351 Filed 07/16/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
from the multi-million dollar class settlement fund. 	Accordingly, the State AGs’ motion (Doc.
No. 1415) is DENIED.
First, the State AGs overlook that the settlement agreements distinguish between class
members’ claims and state or sovereign claims. The settling parties agreed that claims not released
in their settlement agreements are claims brought by states “to vindicate sovereign or quasi-
sovereign interests,” which includes pursuing additional injunctive relief or civil penalties. (Doc.
No. 1250 at 58 ¶ 4(b)). What the settlement agreements did do is provide monetary relief to class
members on their claims, not the states. 	Tellingly, the State AGs offer no persuasive legal
authority to contradict the legal authority cited by the settling parties that states’ parens patriae
claims duplicate class action monetary claims for damages and that parens patriae claims belong
to class members rather than the states. (Compare Doc. No. 1448-1 at 9–12, with Doc. No. 1415-
1 at 18–19). 	Indeed, the State AGs’ position would lead to confusion and chaos, impeding
settlements because Defendants could not obtain certainty and closure on class members’ damages
claims. That would not advance the public’s interest.
Second, perhaps realizing that their attempt to collect double damages for class member
renters is doomed, the State AGs next argue that the injunction prohibiting such double-damages
efforts is procedurally improper. (Doc. No. 1415-1 at 12). The words in the injunction put that
concern in proper context. The Orders on Preliminary Approval of Settlements (Doc. Nos. 1313,
1407) enjoin the settling class member renters from “prosecuting, pursuing, maintaining, or
enforcing any Released Claims against Set 1 Settling Defendants in any forum.” 	As the Court
explained: “This injunction is necessary to protect, effectuate, and aid the Settlements, this Order,
and the Court’s jurisdiction and judgments.” (Doc. No. 1313 at 6–7; Doc. No. 1407 at 3–4). It is
not only logical to give the settling parties certainty, closure, and protection from an award of
Case 3:24-cv-01196 Document 351 Filed 07/16/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
double damages to settling class members, but it is legally proper under the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651. Again, the State AGs offer no legal authority contradicting the well-established
principle that courts have long relied on the All Writs Act to enjoin class members or those
proceeding on their behalf from proceeding in state courts on claims that mirror or duplicate claims
released in settlement agreements. See, e.g., In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 336 (2d
Cir. 1985); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Pracs. Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 876, 879
(M.D. Tenn. 2000). The Settling Defendants themselves also recognize that the settlements leave
the State AGs free to pursue their sovereign claims: “Indeed, the settlements release claims
‘direct[ly]’ brought by class members and claims brought ‘representative[ly] on behalf of class
members.’ 	This Court correspondingly enjoined ‘Class Members (and any person or entity
purporting to act or bring claims on behalf of Settlement Class Members).’ By contrast, the Five
AGs are free to keep pursuing their sovereign claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief
because the settlements do not release those claims.” 	(Doc. No. 1448-1 at 14–15) (citations
omitted). Because the Court’s injunction is in aid of its jurisdiction to enforce and effectuate the
settlement agreements in this complex antitrust multi-district action, there is no violation of the
Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. (See cases cited in Doc. No. 1448-1 at 15–16).
Third, it is in the public’s interest to deny the State AGs’ motion so that thousands of class
member renters and settling defendants can benefit from their work. 	Denying the motion also
vindicates the competitive protections embodied in the antitrust laws.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01196 Document 351 Filed 07/16/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>