A federal judge appears to be leaning toward dismissing at least some of the claims against eXp in a lawsuit filed by an agent—Anya Roberts—who claims she was sexually assaulted by recruiters, discussing a tentative order that seemingly did not find the company was negligently or “vicariously” liable for the actions of influencers.
The tentative order, which Judge Andre Birotte Jr. shared with the parties but has not released publicly, offers “leave to amend” for some of the claims regarding eXp, meaning the plaintiff’s attorneys can seek to reargue certain elements of the case if they are dismissed, and introduce new evidence.
Birotte also floated the idea of consolidating the case with a very similar lawsuit filed by four other women who have made similar claims against the company and the two recruiters—David Golden and Michael Bjorkman.
According to Roberts’ lawsuit, Bjorkman and Golden conspired to drug her at an eXp event in 2020 before Golden and his girlfriend sexually assaulted her. Golden then tried to convince Roberts to name him as her “sponsor” within the company, according to the lawsuit, eventually entering into a consensual relationship with her (though she never named him as a sponsor).
Roberts has argued that eXp knew or should have known that Bjorkman and Golden were victimizing women this way, but failed to intervene because the company benefited from the men’s successful recruiting efforts.
Without addressing the legal validity of some of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding eXp’s alleged complicity in the assaults, Birotte said he felt it was somewhat premature in the case to debate at least some of the theories.
“I want to think about that a little more; I understand and appreciate (the) argument,” Birotte said at a virtual hearing late last week. “I query in my mind whether this is something that is necessarily the subject of a motion to dismiss. I anticipate, depending on how this case proceeds, this issue will come up again.”
The case is the second one to attempt to hold eXp liable for the actions of Bjorkman and Golden, who have since been separated from the mega-brokerage, but at one time were high-level recruiters with personal connections to eXp Founder and CEO Glenn Sanford.
The first lawsuit, filed by four other former eXp agents and making very similar accusations, was recently allowed to move forward, with Birotte also dismissing some of the charges against Sanford and eXp while allowing others to go forward—including an allegation that the company participated in a sex trafficking venture.
Ruling on that case, Birotte also gave plaintiffs leave to amend and attempt to reargue that eXp and Sanford were essentially acting as employers of Bjorkman and Golden.
Both lawsuits make similar accusations regarding Bjorkman and Golden, alleging they engaged in a long-running scheme to drudge, rape and recruit female agents, and both name Sanford as a defendant as well.
Jennifer Lenze, a lawyer representing Roberts, said she plans to amend the lawsuit, and claims she has additional evidence regarding the timing and scope of knowledge that eXp had of the alleged actions of Bjorkman and Golden—which include a lengthy history of drugging and sexually assaulting women.
Lenze did not respond to emailed requests for comment or clarification regarding the substance of this evidence. In an emailed statement to RISMedia, an eXp spokesperson said the company could not “comment or speculate” on the pending order—which again, is tentative, and could still be modified before it becomes binding.
“eXp Realty has zero tolerance for abuse, harassment, or misconduct of any kind—including by the independent real estate agents who use our services,” the spokesperson said.
One of the main contentions of Roberts’ lawsuit is that eXp and Sanford benefited from and controlled Bjorkman and Golden to a level that would make them legally culpable for the men’s actions. Sanford and eXp argued in court filings that there was no potential or actual benefit derived from the two recruiters’ alleged assaults, and further disputed that they had any knowledge of those actions.
Birotte’s tentative order appeared to agree with Sanford and eXp, with Lenze noting the order questioned whether there was an additional benefit to the company alleged in the lawsuit. Birotte also seemed to hone in on the fact that Roberts did not allege that eXp and Sanford had specific knowledge that she was assaulted.
Lenze argued at the hearing that if the company knew Bjorkman and Golden were repeatedly assaulting women and allowed them to continue recruiting for the company, that by itself was enough to prove liability.
“The inquiry that the court seems to want to address in the tentative (order) I don’t believe is one that the case law demonstrates. All that plaintiffs need to show in terms of knowledge…is that there was knowledge that these were bad actors,” Lenze said.
As far as consolidating Roberts’ case with the first lawsuit, Birotte said he felt it would be “a waste of time” to have two separate trials, without saying explicitly that he would combine them.
