Judge Stephen Bough refused to recuse himself from a case involving Hanna Holdings, saying their attorneys already had a chance to flag an apparent conflict. Hanna attorneys say it’s not true.
Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
Attorneys for Hanna Holdings, the parent company of Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, are doubling down on efforts to remove Judge Stephen R. Bough from the Gibson commission lawsuit, according to legal papers filed Friday.
The latest missive — filed in the Western District of Missouri, where Bough is overseeing settlment talks with defendants Hanna Holdings, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Crye-Leike — calls into question a claim made earlier this month in which Bough reminded the attorneys that he had already offered an opportunity to call for his recusal in May 2024.
Hanna attorneys, however, insist they weren’t in the room.
“Hanna Holdings writes to clarify that its local counsel was not in the courtroom for the final settlement hearing on May 9, 2024,” David Z. Gringer, a Hanna Holdings attorney, wrote in the filing, adding that he also checked with staff to determine if any attorney attended the meeting and found none who had.
The letter is the latest in a legal back-and-forth between the largest remaining real estate defendants still battling plaintiffs in court over the Gibson antitrust allegations.
At a hearing in May 2024 that included attorneys for real estate defendants and homeseller plaintiffs who filed the antitrust lawsuit, Bough went around the room and asked lawyers in the case if they wanted him to recuse himself over donations that attorneys in the case made to his wife’s city council campaigns.
Earlier this month, Bough cited his recollection of that hearing in an order denying the request by defendants that he step aside as a result of the campaign contributions.
In response, Hanna Holdings attorneys wrote in a letter on Friday that they have no evidence that anyone representing the Pennsylvania-based brokerage was at the hearing. Additionally, the law firm didn’t submit any time entries to Hanna Holdings for work done in May 2024, and Hanna Holdings wasn’t a named defendant in the case.
“In sum, Hanna Holdings is confident that no attorney of any law firm representing Hanna Holdings in this litigation attended the final settlement hearing in [Sitzer | Burnett]. And it is likewise confident that the representations in the sworn declarations submitted alongside its motion for recusal were accurate.”
Hanna Holdings attorneys have maintained that they only recently discovered the potential conflict of interest and demanded that Bough recuse himself shortly after the discovery.
They have pointed out that Bough recused himself in a separate, unrelated case in Missouri after defendants in that case also raised the apparent conflict of interest.
In his order denying the recusal demand, Bough speculated Hanna Holdings wasn’t as concerned about ethics as it was about a string of recent court denials in the Gibson case.
“The timing of Hanna Holding’s motion is noteworthy as it occurred after the court denied its motion to dismiss in December 2024 and motion to certify an interlocutory appeal in February 2025. Based on this timing, it appears Hanna Holdings’ motivations may have been driven more by ‘litigation strateg[y] than by ethical concerns.’”
The three real estate companies are also seeking to have the case transferred to courts in their home states. Bough has yet to rule on those requests.
