Additional plaintiff named
The first is an additional named plaintiff. While the lawsuit is named after its lead plaintiff Fabiola Acevedo, the suit also had three unnamed Jane Doe plaintiffs, two of which have since been identified as Tami Sims and Christiana Lundy. In the third amended complaint, “Jane Doe 3” is identified as Megan Farrell-Nelson.
The updated complaint also adds one new cause of action, fraudulent misrepresentation, which is lodged against eXp Realty and eXp World Holdings. According to the third amended complaint, via its agent agreement, eXp contractually promised to promptly investigate reports of harassment or assault.
Claims of no timely investigation
However, the plaintiffs claim that although eXp repeatedly said it was investigating their complaints, no investigation occurred. They say they believed eXp was handling the issue and as a result continued to cooperate with and remain affiliated with eXp, and not take other protective measures.
In support of this cause of action, the plaintiffs claim that despite what eXp’s agent contact and own operating procedures state, eXp declined to interview witnesses identified by the plaintiffs, take sworn statements, or request statements from Bjorkman and Golden.
Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that Sanford and other eXp senior leaders took steps to preserve Bjorkman’s economic position rather than remove him from the company. They claim that Sanford directed eXp’s Chief Legal Officer Jim Bramble to accelerate Bjorkman’s vesting so Bjorkman could keep receiving revenue share despite the allegations, and that he inserted himself into the Agent Compliance Committee and advocated that Bjorkman be allowed to return to active status.
Originally filed in February 2023, the plaintiffs quickly thereafter filed a first amendment complaint, accusing Sanford and eXp of negligently hiring, retaining and supervising Bjorkman and Golden.
Judge André Birotte Jr. of the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California ruled that the claims against eXp and Sanford had passed Nevada’s two-year statute of limitations while stating that the plaintiffs had “plausibly demonstrated a cover up.” Based on this ruling, Birotte ended up denying many of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case, but granted those filed by eXp World Holdings and Sanford. However, Judge Birotte afforded the plaintiffs the opportunity to refile an amended complaint.
As a result of this ruling, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in late February 2024. In this complaint, the plaintiffs attempted to paint a clearer picture by detailing eXp’s revenue sharing program and Sanford’s role in it. The two parties have been engaged in discovery since the second amended complaint was filed. The plaintiffs requested to file this third amended complaint in late August 2025.
The defendants did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment.
