California
Realtors settlement brings confusion, relief to Southern California’s real estate industry
One thing is known for sure about a proposed settlement of a massive antitrust case against Realtors: the home selling process is about to change, and with it, how buyers and sellers compensate their agents.
Otherwise, say members of Southern California’s real estate industry, it’s too soon to decipher the impact of the $418 million deal unveiled on Friday, March 15.
Also see: Brokerage stocks tumble after Realtors agree to commission-cutting deal
Will buyers now start paying their agents directly?
Will buyers now have to sign a contract before their agent will show them any homes?
Will lenders allow buyers to roll the cost of paying agent commissions into a slightly larger mortgage?
And ultimately, will the settlement lead to to smaller commissions and lower home prices?
Also see: Homebuying’s 6% commission is gone after Realtors settle lawsuit
“There’s just a lot of moving pieces that have to be settled,” said Art Carter, chief executive of the Chino Hills-based California Regional Multiple Listing Service, which covers much of Southern California. “And I’m not going to say I have my arms around every one of those moving pieces.”
In a statement announcing the settlement, the National Association of Realtors said it agreed to a new rule banning sellers from offering compensation to buyers’ agents through a Realtor-affiliated MLS, or home-listing database.
But it was unclear if that will end the decades-old practice of requiring sellers to pay buyers’ agents.
While “offers of broker compensation could not be communicated via the MLS,” the NAR statement said, “they could continue to be an option,” so long as they’re communicated outside the MLS.
“The only certainty I can give you is the process will change,” Carter said.
The Realtor announcement followed an Oct. 31 jury verdict in Kansas City awarding nearly $1.8 billion to Missouri home sellers, finding the current agent compensation system perpetuates the 5-6% commission rate.
More than 20 similar lawsuits proliferated across the nation in the wake of the verdict, including at least three in California, naming more than 200 other industry groups in 11 states as defendants.
California Realtor groups hit with copycat commission rates lawsuit
Under the settlement announced Friday, NAR would pay $418 million over four years, instead of $1.8 billion. The settlement would cover more than a million NAR member agents, all state and local Realtor associations, Realtor-owned multiple listing services and NAR-affiliated brokerages generating less than $2 billion in sales. But large national real estate chains that were NAR’s co-defendants won’t be covered.
A law firm that took part in the settlement hailed the agreement as “groundbreaking,” saying it could save consumers billions of dollars in broker fees.
“This settlement changes (NAR) rules so that competition will occur at the commission level,” Steve Berman, a lead attorney in the case, said in a statement.
In Southern California, the announcement led to a combination of confusion, anxiety and relief.
Carter, the regional MLS CEO, tried to explain the settlement Friday to a meeting of brokers in Arcadia.
“I think there’s just a lot of confusion,” he said of the brokers’ reaction to the news. “They’re just curious to see what the new normal is going to look like.”
There was an element of relief at the Glendale Association of Realtors, one of 19 local Realtor associations named in a class-action lawsuit filed in January.
The settlement appears to be “a good start, a step in the right direction,” said David Kissinger, Glendale Realtors association chief executive.
“We are in defendant in one of the cases,” Kissinger said. “And as a defendant in a case, … that’s concerning. There is substantial risk to us. We were certain in the belief that the case did not have merit. But, you know, the court and the jury are going to do what they’re going to do.”
Carter echoed that sentiment.
“We support NAR for taking the steps” toward settling the cases. “If it would have been litigated further, it could have been quite detrimental to the the industry.”
The proposed effective date will be July 1 if the settlement gets court approval, although that — like everything else — is subject to change, Carter said.
If approved, the settlement could lead to the widespread use of buyer-broker agreements, he said. Currently only about a fifth of buyers sign representation agreements with their agents.
It’s possible sellers could list an amount for concessions in their MLS listings, instead of compensation offers, and buyers could use those concessions as they choose — perhaps paying for repairs, for closing costs or to compensate their agents, Carter said.
“The (agent’s) job is going to change significantly,” said Newport Beach broker Bill Cote, owner of Cote Realty Group. “I think you’re going to see a whole element of people come out and say that they are buyers brokers, and they’re only representing buyers. But the difficulty with that is getting the buyers to step to the plate to say that they’re going to pay the compensation to the buyer’s broker.”
Cote noted that in high-priced communities, from Newport and Laguna Beach to Silicon Valley, the buyer’s share of commissions “has always been very large.”
Ed Coulson, director of the Center for Real Estate at UC Irvine, predicted the settlement could have a major impact on agent earnings and commission rates.
People accepted 5-6% commission rates as if it were a rule, which it’s not, he said.
“One of the things that’s going to happen is people will recognize it’s not a rule, and that’s going to bring commission rates down,” he said. “I think the thing that is most important is we don’t know the impact on prices. There’s been a lot of speculation it would lower house prices, but that depends on the seller folding the commission into the house price. And I’m very uncertain that we know the extent to which that happens.”
California
Southern California police vow to quash planned ‘takeover’ event following recent chaos
Huntington Beach police are vowing to prevent a potential “takeover” event being promoted across social media that they believe could get out of control.
Police said they became aware of the event from a flyer online advertising an “end of summer beach bash” in the city.
“Dear ‘Beach Bash’ organizers…” police said in an Instagram post Thursday. “Thanks for the flyer. We’ve seen it too.”
They continued, “We have no intention of allowing that to happen here.”
No further details were provided about when the event was planned to take place or the exact location.
Police and the city of Huntington Beach said they’re working to prevent the event following similar events in Southern California that resulted in violence, vandalism and other criminal activity.
One chaotic event that was held in Newport Beach on the Fourth of July ended with more than 400 people being arrested, according to police. Some partygoers were seen fist fighting, while others allegedly vandalized property and local businesses, including a Pavilions grocery store.
Newport Beach police said social media posts drew a large influx of people to Newport Pier in a short amount of time, and the event got out of control.
Huntington Beach PD warned that anyone who organizes, promotes or participates in criminal activity associated with a takeover event may be arrested or prosecuted. Charges may include incitement to riot, vandalism, theft, assault, reckless driving, unlawful assembly, conspiracy or other applicable offenses.
They also warned that juveniles would not be exempt from punishment, and parents or guardians may also be liable for damages caused by their child’s actions.
The HBPD Special Investigations Bureau has already identified individuals believed to be involved in organizing and promoting the event, according to police.
If you have information regarding this event, you are urged to contact Huntington PD’s Special Investigations Bureau at 714-536-5991.
California
Popular California Fast-Casual Chain Mendocino Farms Opens 100th Location in Santa Barbara – edhat
Santa Barbara has become home to a milestone location for a popular sandwich and salad chain.
Mendocino Farms has officially opened its doors at La Cumbre Plaza, marking the company’s 100th location.
Located at 3851 State Street, the restaurant is Mendocino Farms’ first location in Santa Barbara.
Announcing its new store in a social media post, Mendocino Farms said the restaurant offers chef-curated sandwiches and fresh salads using seasonal ingredients.
“Whether you’re fueling your next adventure or settling in for a sunny lunch with friends, we can’t wait to be part of your community. Here’s to our next chapter, together!” the business wrote on Instagram.
View this post on Instagram
The restaurant features a custom mural by local artist DJ Javier, as shared by Mendocino Farms in an Instagram post.
The store opened on June 30 and marked its first day with a host of activities to celebrate its launch.
The opening day featured a live DJ, activities such as ‘Rodeo Riviera’, a hat bar, live sandwich-making sessions with the chefs, and a postcard station.
The location is open daily between 10:30 a.m. and 9 p.m., according to its website.
Diners can enjoy a special summer menu along with the regular options of sandwiches and salads that Mendocino Farms is known for.
View this post on Instagram
In addition to its menu options, the restaurant also offers catering services with deliveries available from 10 a.m. onwards.
The space occupied by Mendocino Farms earlier housed Panera Bread, which closed in 2025, per the Restaurant Guy.
About Mendocino Farms
The Los Angeles-based fast-casual chain is known for its selection of freshly made sandwiches, salads, wraps, and soups.
Founded in 2005, Mendocino Farms offers classic as well as limited signature items.
The company opened its first location below the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles and has since expanded into a regional brand, according to the Restaurant Guy.
In addition to California, Mendocino Farms has locations in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and Washington, the company’s website shows.
The restaurants feature a rotating menu of items, along with a range of kids’ menu items that are served with a beverage and a choice of side.
Additionally, the chain offers a variety of dessert options, packaged chips, and packaged beverages.
The company is known for sourcing all its ingredients from ethical local farms and small producers.
All meat and poultry items served are antibiotic-free and humanely raised, while eggs are sourced from cage-free farms, according to its website. Fruits and vegetables are hand-picked, and bread is locally and freshly sourced.
The menu includes a range of items to accommodate all types of diets, such as flexitarian, vegan, and gluten-free.
California
Toddler sustains brain injury in fall after California childcare worker threw him into the air, lawsuit says
A fitness club is being sued after an employee at one of its childcare facilities in Southern California threw a 23-month-old child in the air and failed to catch him, resulting in a traumatic brain injury, according to the complaint.
Matthew and Elena Kittle filed the lawsuit July 2 against The Bay Club, an upscale club with multiple locations, including one in El Segundo, just south of Los Angeles.
They allege that while their son, identified by the initials C.K., was at the daycare center at The Bay Club El Segundo on March 17, 2025, an employee tossed him into the air — 6 feet above the ground — but failed to catch him, the lawsuit says. C.K. fell to the ground and hit his head on the hardwood floor, and the employee fell backward and landed on top of him, the suit says.
It says The Bay Club downplayed the severity of the fall to the boy’s parents. C.K. sustained a concussion and still experiences side effects from the fall, the suit says.
The complaint, filed against The Bay Clubs Co. LLC and Bay Club South Bay LLC, alleges negligence; negligence per se; negligent hiring, retention and supervision; negligent infliction of emotional distress; fraud — intentional concealment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and battery.
The Bay Club said it is unable to comment on ongoing litigation.
“At the Bay Club, the safety of our members, team members, and the families we serve is our highest priority,” it said in a statement.
The Bay Club LLC owns and operates private fitness and country clubs across the West Coast, including locations in Oregon, Washington and California.
Its El Segundo location has the El Segundo Clubhouse, which the club’s website describes as a 14,000-square-foot childcare center, where kids participate in activities under supervision.
The day of the incident, C.K.’s father dropped him off at the El Segundo Clubhouse. He told staff members he would be at the Bay Club Manhattan Country Club, a mile away, for the next three hours, according to the complaint.
C.K. was injured at 9:20 a.m., the suit says.
Security video, which was included in the lawsuit, shows a female employee holding a child by his hands and swinging him between her legs. She then throws the boy over her head, letting go of the child’s hands, and fails to catch him. The child falls to the floor behind her, and the employee falls backward and appears to land on top of him, the video shows. The employee then appears to hold the child while they are on the floor.
Other staff members react with shock and concern after the fall, the video shows.
The club called C.K.’s parents separately afterward. Matthew Kittle picked up the call at 9:30 a.m. and was told that C.K. had “fallen” and had since “calmed down,” the lawsuit says. He called back and said he would pick up his son at the end of his session.
At 9:45 a.m., the club called him again, suggested C.K. needed to be picked up and said that “they had not been able to settle C.K. down,” the filing says.
When Matthew Kittle picked up C.K. at 10:10 a.m., he found his son’s face was “badly bruised,” with his right eye swollen shut and his mouth swollen, the suit says. Once he was at home, C.K. was “extremely drowsy, lethargic, and irritable,” and his parents became concerned, the suit says.
Elena Kittle spoke with an employee, who described herself as the aquatics director, at 10:44 a.m., according to the filing.
The aquatics director said that C.K. “was being held by an employee who fell over while she was in a squatting position” and that “C.K. was only about ‘1.5 feet above the ground’ when the fall occurred,” the suit says. She also said that C.K. wanted to “go to sleep immediately after the fall” and that employees “had trouble keeping him awake,” the suit says.
An hour later, C.K. was checked into the emergency room at a medical center in Torrance. There, the medical staff also questioned the accuracy of The Bay Club’s description of the incident, “because the injuries weren’t consistent with a fall from 1.5 feet,” the suit claims.
C.K. underwent a CT scan and a neurological exam and was diagnosed with a concussion, blunt head trauma and facial abrasion, the complaint says.
At 2:22 p.m. that day, Elena Kittle spoke with The Bay Club’s general manager, who said she reviewed video of the incident and also claimed C.K. fell from 1.5 feet, according to the filing.
The parents asked for the video, which they received March 21, 2025 — which left them “shocked” by the “severity of the fall” and by “the fact that the Bay Club tried to cover up the true nature of the incident,” the suit says. The complaint says the video showed the child was at least 6 feet in the air — not 1.5 feet, as the club had said.
Weeks after the incident, C.K. had symptoms including sensitivity to light and sound, irritability, irregular sleep, lethargy and attachment issues, the suit says. A neurology specialist who examined him in April 2025 said C.K. was still experiencing concussion symptoms, the filing says.
“It was assessed that C.K. suffered a ‘definite concussion with a discrete enough force and clinical signs that indicate he’s in pain and behavioral changes,’” the complaint says. The filing says C.K. continues to experience symptoms, including loss of hearing.
The suit also alleges that the daycare center was not operating legally.
Under California law, childcare centers require licenses from the state Department of Social Services. Some child daycare programs can be exempt from licensing if parents and guardians are on the same premises and if they are not operated on certain sites, including malls or ski facilities.
The suit alleges The Bay Club does not fall under that exception because parents are not necessarily always on the premises. Children can be left at the Bay Club El Segundo Clubhouse while parents go to The Bay Club’s Manhattan Country Club a mile away, the suit says.
The club’s website says a parent or guardian has to be on-site during a reservation.
The parents, represented by the law firm Rosen Saba, demand a jury trial, exemplary and punitive damages and civil and statutory penalties.
-
Austin, TX2 minutes agoThink tank says state education reforms have set up future of the ‘Texas Miracle’
-
Alabama9 minutes agoNew Alabama women’s basketball coach Pauline Love credits late mentor for coaching career
-
Alaska12 minutes agoFatal crash closes Glenn Highway southbound lanes near Eagle River
-
Arizona17 minutes agoArizona Cardinals’ Jordan Burch takes lessons from rookie year
-
Arkansas24 minutes agoDino Fest brings interactive experiences, lifelike dinosaurs and reptiles to Arkansas July
-
California27 minutes agoSouthern California police vow to quash planned ‘takeover’ event following recent chaos
-
Colorado32 minutes agoBody found in western Colorado believed to have been eaten by bear
-
Connecticut39 minutes agoCBIA BizCast: Snapshot of Connecticut’s Economy » CBIA