| Court |
| Decided |
| Plaintiff-Appellant |
| Defendants-Appellees |
| Lower Court |
| Disposition |
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
| September 9, 2026 |
| Luz de Amor (“Lou”) Eytalis, broker, Wichita Falls, Texas (pro se) |
| National Association of Realtors; Texas Association of Realtors; Wichita Falls Association of Realtors; Paragon MLS Connect |
| U.S. District Court, N.D. Tex. (Wichita Falls Div.), Judge Reed C. O’Connor — dismissed July 2025 |
| Dismissal affirmed; costs on appeal taxed against Appellant |
Case Posture
On September 9, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust suit brought by Lou Eytalis, a self-represented Wichita Falls broker, against NAR, the Texas Association of Realtors, the Wichita Falls Association of Realtors, and Paragon MLS Connect.
Underlying Claims
Eytalis filed suit in December 2024 after disputing roughly $5,000 in dues billed by her local association for inactive agents in 2023–24. Her complaint characterized association membership requirements for MLS access as an “anti-competitive monopoly,” targeting NAR’s “three-way agreement,” which conditions MLS access on simultaneous membership in local, state, and national Realtor associations. The theory was framed as a Sherman Act § 1 violation, with related state-law claims.
District Court Ruling (July 2025)
Following a magistrate judge’s recommendation, Judge Reed O’Connor dismissed the federal claims — holding the Clayton Act inapplicable because it does not reach services, and finding the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to show antitrust injury or a conspiracy among defendants — and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Fifth Circuit’s Reasoning
• Forfeiture: Eytalis forfeited any challenge to the district court’s Clayton Act ruling by failing to brief the issue on appeal.
• Antitrust injury: The panel held the allegations in the third amended complaint were too conclusory to establish the antitrust injury required for standing under Sherman Act § 1.
• State-law claims: Because the federal claims were properly dismissed, the panel found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s declining to retain the state-law claims.
• Review process: The panel rejected Eytalis’s argument that the district court inadequately reviewed her objections, noting the district judge certified a de novo review of the magistrate’s findings.
Notably, the court did not reach the merits of whether the three-way structure itself is anticompetitive. The dismissal rests on pleading-stage insufficiency, not a substantive antitrust holding validating the membership model.
Persuasive Authority Relied Upon
NAR called the panel’s attention to Hardy, a parallel three-way-agreement challenge brought by Michigan agents and dismissed by the Eastern District of Michigan on March 30, 2026, on similar reasoning — that plaintiffs had not shown NAR and co-defendants conducted business in an anti-competitive manner. NAR urged the Fifth Circuit to draw on that court’s Sherman Act analysis; the panel’s ruling suggests it did. The court additionally ordered Eytalis to pay appellees’ costs on appeal.
NAR’s Public Position
NAR issued a statement expressing that it was pleased the court dismissed the appeal, “leaving in place the district court’s dismissal of the federal antitrust claims with prejudice and rejection of the allegation that NAR’s three-way agreement violates antitrust law,” adding that “NAR membership is voluntary, and the integrated structure connecting local, state, and national associations remains lawful and essential to the value we provide our members.”
Practical Significance
• Pattern of dismissals: This is NAR’s third recent appellate/trial win on three-way-agreement challenges (following Hardy, and earlier reporting on the Homie and Muhammad suits), reinforcing a trend of dismissal at the pleading stage for lack of a well-pled antitrust injury — not a merits vindication of the model.
• Open circuit split risk: A related challenge remains pending before the Sixth Circuit (Michigan brokers’ appeal in Hardy), so the doctrinal question is not fully settled circuit-by-circuit.
• Rehearing option: Eytalis retains the option to seek rehearing en banc; no indication yet whether she will pursue it.

