A group of landlords urged a Tennessee federal court to reject arguments lodged by several attorneys general who criticized $141.8 million worth of proposed antitrust settlements that aim to resolve multidistrict litigation accusing the landlords of using property management software company RealPage Inc.'s technology for rent price fixing.

In their brief, filed on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the landlords Greystar Management Services LLC, First Communities Management Inc., Avenue5 Residential LLC, Bozzuto Management Co., Bell Partners Inc. and BH Management Services LLC raised concerns about the statement of interest filed by the attorneys general for the District of Columbia, Maryland, Kentucky and New Jersey.

The landlords argued that their settlements release them from the antitrust claims that the attorneys general filed on behalf of the residents living in those areas. These types of claims are referred to as "parens patriae" claims, which a state files on behalf of its residents.

In their brief, the landlords pointed to Greystar's settlement as an example of an agreement that explicitly releases a landlord from similar parens patriae claims.

"By contrast, [the landlords'] settlements do not release them from claims brought by the states in their sovereign capacities seeking injunctive relief or penalties," the landlords argued. "Greystar's release clarifies this distinction because it does not bar actions 'to vindicate sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests.'"

"The remaining [landlords'] settlements include no release of claims brought in a state's sovereign (rather than representative) capacity," they added. The landlords' settlements "thus acknowledge that 'attorneys' general law enforcement powers are not claims the [MDL plaintiffs] have, and … plaintiffs do not release' them," they said, quoting from a 2007 decision by a Pennsylvania federal court involving the American Investors Life Insurance Co.

Additionally, according to the landlords, their settlements releasing them from the attorneys' general antitrust claims are allowed "because those claims belong to class members and duplicate the claims asserted by MDL plaintiffs."

They further argued that litigating a nationwide antitrust class action is better than individually litigating the attorneys' general claims, pointing to case law such as the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California.

"The Supreme Court's reasoning for preferring class actions over parens patriae actions in antitrust cases applies here in spades," the landlords said. "MDL plaintiffs seek recovery for a putative nationwide class, and it would be far more efficient to resolve the claims in this court."

And the four state prosecutors concede that their parens patriae actions are "unencumbered" by the procedural constraints of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that protect class members' due process rights.

The landlords asked the court to block the attorneys general from prosecuting their "duplicative" claims to win damages. They also argued that the prosecutors don't have the standing to oppose the proposed settlements.

One of the landlords' arguments relied on the Sixth Circuit's 2019 decision in Chapman v. Tristar Products Inc., in which the court rejected Arizona's objection to a class action settlement because the state lacked standing, unlike the class members.

"In insisting that parens patriae and [the Class Action Fairness Act] give them an 'unique interest' to object to the settlements' adequacy, the four AGs recycle the same arguments that Chapman already rejected," the landlords claimed.

"Chapman requires this court to reject the four AGs' adequacy objections because 'the only objections [they] make are indistinguishable from the objections which individual [class members] might raise' and the right to object belonged to only the class members," they added.

The landlords further argued that their fairness act notices for their settlements were adequate, in part, because the attorneys general that are challenging the settlements have acknowledged that they've received the notices.

The attorney general for the District of Columbia and counsel for the plaintiffs declined to comment Monday. Counsel for the landlords and the other attorneys general didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Avenue5 Residential is represented by Danny David, James Kress and Paul Cuomo of Baker Botts LLP, and by John R. Jacobson and Milton S. McGee III of Riley & Jacobson PLC.

Bell Partners is represented by Marguerite S. Willis, Michael A. Parente and Margaret M. Siller of Maynard Nexsen PC.

Bozzuto Management is represented by James D. Bragdon and Sam Cowin of Gallagher Evelius & Jones LLP, by Philip A. Giordano of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, and by Charles E. Elder of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

First Communities Management is represented by Richard P. Sybert of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.

BH Management Services is represented by Ian Simmons and Patrick J. Jones of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Greystar is represented by Karen H. Lent, Boris Bershteyn, Evan Kreiner, Sam Auld and Adam Kochman of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, and by Joshua C. Cumby, F. Laurens Brock and Rocklan W. King III of Adams & Reese LLP.

The District of Columbia is represented by John Spragens of Spragens Law PLC, and by Adam Gitlin, Mehreen Imtiaz and Ashley Walters of the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

Maryland is represented by Schonette J. Walker and Melissa L. English of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland.

New Jersey is represented by Brian F. McDonough, David Reichenberg, Jesse J. Sierant and Douglas T. Post of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.

Kentucky is represented by Jonathan E. Farmer of the Kentucky Attorney General's Office.

The District of Columbia, Maryland and New Jersey are also represented by Emmy L. Levens, Robert A. Braun and Aaron J. Marks of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The case is In Re: Realpage Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), case number 3:23-md-03071, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.