Bridge Property Management Lawsuit 2026: Claims, Class Actions & Settlement Status

Bridge Property Management has been named in several legal disputes involving rental applications, tenant screening, housing discrimination, and alleged rent-pricing practices. As a result, searches for the Bridge Property Management Lawsuit can refer to more than one case rather than a single nationwide lawsuit.

Some cases involve proposed class claims, while others concern individual plaintiffs or different state laws. That distinction matters when researching settlement payments, eligibility, complaint allegations, or whether a particular tenant could be affected.

This article reviews the major publicly documented cases, including Alder, Bernuy, Kay, and the Yardi antitrust litigation. It also separates allegations from court findings and explains what tenants should know before assuming that a complaint, lawsuit, or settlement applies to them.

Bridge Property Management Lawsuit 2026 Update: Where Things Stand Now

The legal picture in 2026 is not defined by one consolidated case covering every Bridge Property Management resident. Instead, Bridge Property Management, L.C. has appeared in several proceedings involving substantially different legal theories.

Among the most notable are a Colorado proposed class action concerning rental application and administrative fees, the California Bernuy litigation concerning investigative consumer reports, a federal housing-discrimination action in Illinois, and nationwide antitrust litigation involving Yardi’s rental-pricing software.

What Is the Current Status of the Bridge Property Management Lawsuits?

The cases are at different procedural stages. The California Court of Appeal decided Bernuy in March 2023, ultimately affirming judgment for Bridge Property Management because the plaintiff’s ICRAA claim was time-barred, even though the appellate court disagreed with part of the trial court’s reasoning. The California Supreme Court denied review in July 2023.

The Yardi antitrust proceeding remained active into 2026. Court records show continued motions and litigation activity during 2026, including summary-judgment and expert-related proceedings.

The Kay federal housing-discrimination case was filed in August 2023. Public docket aggregations report that the matter was terminated on March 20, 2024, although the readily available record does not establish a substantive court finding that Bridge violated housing-discrimination law.

What Are the Latest Legal Developments?

The Yardi litigation is one of the most significant ongoing matters because it involves allegations extending beyond a single apartment property. A consolidated class-action complaint filed in 2025 continued to name Bridge Property Management, L.C. among numerous landlord defendants.

The litigation has also produced settlements involving certain other defendants. For example, a federal judge preliminarily approved a settlement with FPI Management in October 2025. That settlement should not be confused with a Bridge Property Management settlement; the order specifically concerned FPI.

By July 2026, the Yardi docket continued to show litigation activity. Therefore, consumers should check the particular defendant and case before treating reports about a Yardi settlement as evidence that Bridge itself has settled.

What Is the Bridge Property Management Lawsuit About?

There is no single allegation that explains every case involving the company. The legal disputes identified in public records cover separate conduct, time periods, states, and laws.

For example, the Colorado Alder complaint challenges rental application and administrative fees. Bernuy dealt with California consumer-reporting requirements. Kay was docketed as a housing-discrimination case, while the Yardi litigation raises federal antitrust allegations about rent-setting technology.

This distinction is important. A tenant who paid an application fee in Colorado is not necessarily part of the same potential class as a renter alleging inflated rent under an antitrust theory.

Why Has Bridge Property Management Been Sued?

Bridge has been sued under several theories because property-management operations touch many regulated areas, including applicant screening, fees, leasing, housing rights, and rent-setting.

The publicly documented disputes include allegations involving:

• rental application and administrative fees in Colorado;
• investigative consumer-report disclosures in California;
• housing discrimination in Illinois; and
• alleged coordination of multifamily rental prices through Yardi software.

These are allegations or legal claims unless a court has specifically made a finding. Filing a complaint does not establish liability.

What Are the Main Allegations Against Bridge Property Management?

The allegations depend on the case. In Alder, the plaintiff alleged that certain application and administrative charges violated Colorado law. The complaint sought damages and other relief for the proposed class.

The Yardi plaintiffs allege that participating property managers used centralized pricing software in a way that reduced independent competition over rents. Bridge has been identified as one of the property-management defendants in the consolidated litigation.

Bernuy, meanwhile, concerned alleged violations of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act in connection with tenant background reports.

Bridge Property Management Rental Application Fee Class Action

One of the most directly relevant cases for prospective tenants is Alder v. Bridge WF CO Artisan LLC et al., filed in Denver District Court on October 2, 2023.

The proposed class complaint names Bridge WF CO Artisan LLC and Bridge Property Management, L.C. According to the complaint, the plaintiff sought to challenge application fees and administrative fees charged in connection with housing at Bridges at 9 Mile Station in Denver.

The case should be described as a proposed class action unless and until the applicable court record establishes certification of a litigation or settlement class.

What Does the Alder v. Bridge Property Management Lawsuit Allege?

Plaintiff David Alder alleged that Bridge charged prospective and actual tenants application and administrative fees that violated Colorado’s Rental Application Fairness Act and related law.

The complaint states that Alder was charged approximately $61.35 in application fees for the applicants and a $153.38 administrative fee. It further alleges that Bridge’s rental criteria described a nonrefundable application fee and a $150 holding fee after approval.

Those statements describe the plaintiff’s allegations. Whether each challenged fee violated Colorado law depends on the statutory requirements, evidence, defenses, and court rulings.

What Rental Application and Administrative Fees Are at Issue?

The lawsuit focuses partly on whether fees imposed before tenancy should legally be treated as rental application fees and whether they reflected permissible application-processing expenses.

Colorado law defines a rental application fee broadly to include money charged in connection with submitting an application and certain nonrefundable fees preceding tenancy. Refundable security deposits and prepaid rent are treated differently under the statutory definition.

The Alder complaint alleges that the challenged application and administrative charges were not adequately tied to allowable processing costs. Bridge may contest the characterization or legal treatment of particular charges.

What Does Colorado’s Rental Application Fairness Act Require?

Colorado’s Rental Application Fairness Act limits what landlords can charge when processing applications. Under the statute, the entire application fee generally must cover actual or average application-processing expenses. Landlords must also provide disclosures or itemization concerning those expenses and give applicants receipts.

Colorado law also restricts application fees when a qualifying portable tenant screening report is supplied. The state’s 2023 legislation expanded these requirements, including disclosure obligations regarding portable reports.

The law has continued to evolve, so an applicant’s rights can depend on when the application was submitted and which statutory version applies.

Bernuy v. Bridge Property Management Company Explained

Bernuy v. Bridge Property Management Co. involved California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, commonly called ICRAA.

The case was one of 27 consolidated actions seeking damages relating to alleged ICRAA violations in 2017. Ronald Bernuy’s lawsuit served as a bellwether for important legal issues concerning retroactivity and the statute of limitations.

The California Court of Appeal issued its published decision on March 30, 2023.

What Were the Background Check Allegations?

ICRAA regulates investigative consumer reports, which can include reports used by landlords when evaluating housing applicants. Among other requirements, the statute imposes disclosure and procedural obligations concerning these reports.

The litigation arose from Bridge’s use of investigative consumer reports in the rental process. Related litigation alleged deficiencies in disclosures and authorizations associated with tenant screening.

ICRAA provides remedies for noncompliance, but a plaintiff must still establish a legally viable and timely claim.

What Did the California Court of Appeal Decide?

The appellate court addressed whether a California Supreme Court ruling concerning ICRAA should operate retroactively.

It concluded that the earlier First Student decision could be applied retroactively in a manner that did not relieve Bridge Property Management from potential liability for ICRAA violations merely because of prior uncertainty surrounding the statute.

However, that conclusion did not give Bernuy a final victory. The appellate court ultimately affirmed judgment for Bridge because Bernuy’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Why Did the Statute of Limitations Matter in the Case?

A statute of limitations determines how long a claimant generally has to bring a particular legal claim.

Bernuy argued that the limitations period should be tolled based on the pendency of a putative class action. The Court of Appeal rejected application of the class-action tolling doctrine under the circumstances presented and concluded that his ICRAA claim was time-barred.

The California Supreme Court subsequently denied a petition for review in July 2023, leaving the appellate result in place.

Bridge Property Management Housing Discrimination Lawsuit

Another case appearing in searches is Kay v. BMV IV IL Fox Valley Villages, LLC et al.

Kimberly Kay filed the federal action on August 24, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Bridge Property Management LLC and BMV IV IL Fox Valley Villages, LLC were identified as defendants.

The federal docket classified the matter as a civil-rights accommodations case and identified 42 U.S.C. § 1981 housing discrimination as the cause of action.

What Is the Kay v. Bridge Property Management Case About?

The case concerned alleged housing discrimination and was assigned case number 1:23-cv-06049.

Early docket activity shows that the parties moved into discovery and case-management proceedings after the complaint was filed. The court established deadlines for disclosures, discovery, and potential dispositive motions.

A later public docket aggregation reports that the case was terminated on March 20, 2024. The available summary does not specify a judicial determination that the defendants committed discrimination.

What Housing Discrimination Claims Were Filed?

The federal docket identifies the cause of action as a housing-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Readers should be cautious about expanding that docket classification into factual conclusions not established by the public record. An allegation of discriminatory housing conduct is different from a court finding that discrimination occurred.

Because the case was later closed, anyone researching its precise resolution should consult the complete federal docket and termination filings rather than relying solely on summaries of the initial complaint.

Bridge Property Management Rent Pricing Class Action

Bridge Property Management is also a defendant in litigation involving Yardi Systems and its rental revenue-management software.

The federal action alleges that Yardi and participating multifamily landlords engaged in an unlawful arrangement that reduced independent competition in rental pricing. The defendants dispute liability, and the allegations remain subject to litigation.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under case number 2:23-cv-01391-RSL.

Why Was Bridge Property Management Named in the Yardi Lawsuit?

Plaintiffs allege that Bridge used Yardi’s RENTmaximizer system, now associated with Yardi’s Revenue IQ product, in setting rents.

The consolidated complaint cites historical material concerning Bridge’s use of the software. Plaintiffs use this and other evidence to support their broader theory that landlords delegated or coordinated aspects of rental pricing through a common platform.

Bridge’s inclusion as a defendant does not itself prove participation in an illegal price-fixing agreement. Antitrust liability requires the plaintiffs to satisfy specific legal and evidentiary requirements.

What Does the Rent-Pricing Class Action Allege?

The plaintiffs contend that competing landlords used Yardi’s pricing technology in a manner that allegedly reduced normal price competition and contributed to supracompetitive rents.

The complaint characterizes RENTmaximizer as an automated rental-pricing system and argues that sharing or using centralized pricing recommendations allowed competing landlords to coordinate behavior that ordinarily would be determined independently.

Those allegations remain contested. Software-assisted pricing is not automatically unlawful; the antitrust issue turns on the alleged agreement, competitive effects, conduct of the defendants, and applicable law.

Which Other Property Management Companies Were Named?

The consolidated litigation has involved a large group of multifamily operators in addition to Bridge. The March 2025 consolidated complaint names companies including Avenue5 Residential, Asset Living, Greystar Management Services, HNN Associates, Morguard, RPM Living, Summit Management Services, and numerous others.

The defendant roster has also changed through dismissals, procedural rulings, and settlements involving particular companies.

For example, a March 2026 ruling dismissed certain nonresident defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Separately, FPI Management reached a proposed settlement that received preliminary approval in 2025.

Are There Multiple Lawsuits Against Bridge Property Management?

Yes. Public court records document multiple cases involving Bridge Property Management, but they should not be treated as one lawsuit.

They involve different plaintiffs, jurisdictions, statutes, factual allegations, and potential remedies. Bernuy, for example, centered on California consumer-reporting requirements, whereas Alder involves Colorado rental fees and the Yardi case raises federal antitrust claims.

This distinction also affects who may potentially recover money. Eligibility in one case does not automatically create eligibility in another.

How Are the Bridge Property Management Cases Different?

The easiest way to distinguish them is by the alleged conduct:

• Alder: application and administrative fees in Colorado.
• Bernuy: tenant background-report requirements under California law.
• Kay: housing-discrimination claims in Illinois.
• Yardi litigation: alleged antitrust violations involving rental-pricing software.

Each case must therefore be evaluated independently.

A ruling against or in favor of Bridge in one proceeding does not automatically resolve the legal questions raised in another.

Does One Lawsuit Represent All Bridge Property Management Residents?

No publicly documented case discussed here should be understood as automatically representing every current and former Bridge resident.

Proposed class definitions are normally limited by factors such as geography, dates, particular fees, properties, defendants, or alleged conduct. Even when a court certifies a class, only people falling within its definition are included.

Tenants should therefore review the class definition and relevant court orders rather than assuming that simply renting at a Bridge-managed property makes them a class member.

Is There a Bridge Property Management Class Action Lawsuit?

Yes, Bridge has been named in proposed or consolidated class-action litigation.

The Colorado Alder complaint was expressly filed on behalf of the named plaintiff and others allegedly similarly situated. The Yardi proceeding is also class-action litigation involving renters and numerous property-management defendants.

However, “class action” does not necessarily mean a court has certified a class against Bridge for every asserted claim.

Who Could Potentially Be Included in a Class Action?

Potential membership depends entirely on the class definition in the specific case.

For Alder, the proposed class concerns people allegedly subjected to the challenged rental application or administrative fee practices. The complaint’s factual allegations are centered on Colorado.

The Yardi plaintiffs have proposed a much broader renter class tied to multifamily housing and landlords that allegedly used Yardi’s RENTmaximizer or Revenue IQ systems.

A proposed class definition can change before final certification or settlement.

Has Any Class Been Certified?

Consumers should distinguish between a proposed litigation class and a certified settlement class.

Within the Yardi litigation, the court has certified settlement classes in connection with settlements involving particular defendants. For example, the October 2025 order preliminarily approving the FPI settlement certified a settlement class for purposes of that agreement.

That does not establish that Bridge Property Management has settled or that a settlement class has been certified specifically to resolve claims against Bridge. Class-certification status should always be checked defendant by defendant.

Bridge Property Management Lawsuit Settlement

Settlement searches require particular care because several cases and defendants appear under the broader Bridge and Yardi litigation landscape.

A settlement involving another Yardi defendant does not automatically resolve claims against Bridge Property Management. Likewise, an individual case ending does not necessarily mean that a class-wide compensation fund exists.

As of the public information reviewed for this September 2026 update, no verified Bridge-specific class settlement with a general payout program has been identified in the major cases discussed here.

Has Bridge Property Management Reached a Class Action Settlement?

No Bridge-specific class settlement has been verified from the public sources reviewed for this article.

The Yardi case has produced settlement developments involving other defendants. FPI Management, for example, received preliminary approval for a class settlement in October 2025.

Consumers should therefore verify the settling defendant’s name before responding to websites or posts suggesting that every company in the Yardi litigation has agreed to pay renters.

Is There a Settlement Amount or Payout?

There is no verified universal Bridge Property Management payout amount identified in the reviewed records.

Possible damages also vary substantially between cases. An application-fee claim under Colorado law involves different remedies from an antitrust claim concerning rent prices or an ICRAA claim involving consumer-reporting disclosures.

Any future settlement amount would normally appear in a settlement agreement, preliminary-approval order, notice to class members, or final-approval documentation.

Is There a Claim Form or Settlement Deadline?

No verified Bridge-specific claim form or class-wide deadline has been identified for the cases discussed here.

Residents should not provide Social Security numbers, banking details, or payment to an unfamiliar website merely because it claims to administer a Bridge Property Management settlement.

A legitimate class settlement generally has court documentation identifying the case, settlement administrator, eligibility requirements, deadlines, and claims process.

Who Owns Bridge Property Management?

Bridge Property Management operates within the broader Bridge Investment Group organization. Public SEC disclosures have identified Bridge Property Management, L.C. as a subsidiary within Bridge’s corporate structure and describe its property-management activities.

This corporate relationship should not be confused with the ownership of each apartment community. Individual properties may be owned through separate entities while Bridge Property Management provides management services.

Is Bridge Property Management Part of Bridge Investment Group?

Yes. Bridge Investment Group publicly presents Bridge Property Management as part of its integrated real-estate platform.

SEC materials have described Bridge Property Management as one of Bridge’s subsidiaries, while Bridge’s own leadership pages identify executives who hold positions across both Bridge Investment Group and Bridge Property Management.

That relationship explains why both names can appear when researching particular properties, executives, or corporate operations.

Who Is the CEO of Bridge Property Management?

Bridge’s current public leadership information identifies Matt DeGraw as Chief Executive Officer of Bridge Property Management. He is also a Senior Managing Director at Bridge Investment Group and Co-Chief Investment Officer for Bridge Multifamily.

Bridge Property Management’s own leadership page likewise identifies Matt DeGraw as Chief Executive Officer and President.

Corporate titles can change, so current company leadership pages are preferable to older third-party profiles.

How Does Bridge Property Management Fit Into Bridge Investment Group?

Bridge Investment Group uses specialized operating and investment platforms across real estate. Bridge Property Management provides property-management capabilities within that broader structure.

Bridge’s filings and corporate materials describe an integrated model in which properties and investment vehicles can use internal management services. Earlier corporate reporting, for example, described multifamily assets as being internally managed by Bridge Property Management.

This does not mean that Bridge Property Management itself necessarily owns every apartment community it manages.

Bridge Property Management Complaints

Separate from litigation, residents and applicants have posted complaints about Bridge-managed properties through consumer-review channels.

BBB records for Bridge Property Management, L.C. show complaints categorized around service or repair issues, product issues, billing, and related concerns. Recent complaints have discussed matters such as maintenance, communication, deposits, application fees, and charges.

These submissions represent consumer allegations and experiences. BBB itself cautions that it does not verify the accuracy of all third-party complaint information.

What Are the Most Common Tenant Complaints?

Recurring themes visible in public consumer complaints include:

• maintenance delays or unresolved repair requests;
• difficulty reaching property staff;
• disputes involving fees or move-out charges;
• application or deposit disagreements;
• leasing and communication problems; and
• disagreements over property conditions.

BBB records also contain company responses to various complaints, sometimes disputing the resident’s account or describing steps taken to address the problem.

Therefore, complaint pages should be read as two-sided consumer records rather than court findings.

Complaints About Fees and Rental Applications

Some applicants and residents have disputed application fees, security deposits, returned-payment charges, move-out assessments, or other amounts.

For example, a 2025 BBB complaint alleged an $85 application-fee dispute after an apartment application. Bridge responded that it lacked enough property information to investigate the matter and offered to have someone follow up if those details were provided.

Individual complaints do not establish that a fee was unlawful. The applicable lease, state law, disclosure documents, receipts, and factual circumstances matter.

Complaints About Maintenance and Property Management

Maintenance is another recurring category in consumer submissions.

Published complaints include allegations involving heating, air conditioning, plumbing, pest issues, access problems, and delayed repairs. Bridge’s responses in some cases provide different accounts of the circumstances or describe maintenance efforts undertaken.

Whether a maintenance problem constitutes a lease violation or violation of landlord-tenant law depends on the jurisdiction, severity, notice provided, response time, and other facts.

Complaints About Leasing and Resident Services

Communication and leasing-service complaints also appear in online reviews. Residents have alleged unanswered calls, inconsistent information, disputed lease charges, and difficulty obtaining responses from management.

These experiences can be relevant when evaluating a property, but they should not automatically be attributed to every Bridge-managed community.

Bridge operates across numerous properties and markets. Local staffing, ownership arrangements, building conditions, and management circumstances can vary substantially.

Bridge Property Management Reviews: What Residents Are Saying

Public reviews of Bridge Property Management include strongly negative experiences as well as individual disputes over particular properties.

BBB’s customer-review page showed a low aggregate consumer rating when reviewed, with reviewers raising concerns involving maintenance, property conditions, charges, communication, and management interactions.

Review platforms can identify patterns worth investigating, but they are not substitutes for court records, leases, inspection reports, or regulatory findings.

How Should Online Tenant Reviews Be Evaluated?

Start by looking for details rather than relying solely on star ratings.

A useful review usually identifies the specific property, approximate date, issue involved, attempts to resolve it, and outcome. Multiple independent reports describing similar problems at the same location may provide more useful context than a single generalized complaint.

Consumers should also compare reviews with management responses and more objective sources when available.

Are Customer Complaints the Same as Proven Lawsuit Allegations?

No. A customer complaint, lawsuit allegation, and judicial finding are three different things.

A review describes someone’s reported experience. A lawsuit converts allegations into formal legal claims that must be supported through the litigation process. A court judgment or factual finding carries a different evidentiary significance.

Even the filing of a class-action complaint does not mean the court has determined that the allegations are true.

What Should Current or Former Bridge Property Management Tenants Know?

A tenant concerned about charges, screening, rent, maintenance, or another issue should preserve records before deciding whether the problem relates to one of the lawsuits discussed above.

The applicable law can vary significantly by state. A Colorado application-fee rule, for example, generally does not determine whether a fee charged to a tenant in another state was lawful.

The date is also important because statutes and lease terms change.

What Documents Should Tenants Keep?

Useful records may include:

• signed leases and lease renewals;
• rental applications and screening disclosures;
• application-fee and administrative-fee receipts;
• rent ledgers and payment confirmations;
• move-in and move-out statements;
• emails and text messages with management;
• maintenance requests and photographs; and
• notices concerning rent, deposits, fees, or screening decisions.

Keeping original electronic copies can help establish dates and wording if a dispute later develops.

What Can Tenants Do If They Dispute a Fee or Rental Charge?

First, request an itemized explanation of the charge and compare it with the lease, application documents, and applicable state law.

Communicate in writing when possible. A dated email creates a clearer record than relying entirely on telephone conversations.

For application-fee disputes, tenants should also preserve receipts, screening-report documentation, advertisements, and any written disclosures received before paying the fee.

When May a Tenant Need Legal Advice?

Legal advice may be appropriate when significant money is involved, a collection account or eviction is threatened, discrimination is alleged, statutory deadlines may expire, or a tenant believes they may qualify for an existing class action.

A local landlord-tenant or consumer attorney can evaluate facts that a general online article cannot.

Tenants should pay particular attention to limitation periods because Bernuy illustrates how a potentially substantive legal claim can fail when filed outside the applicable deadline.

How to Contact Bridge Property Management

Bridge provides a centralized online contact form that allows users to select a property and submit their name, email, telephone number, and message.

The company’s current contact page lists its address as 111 East Sego Lily Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84070.

For property-specific issues, contacting the local leasing or management office may be useful before escalating the matter to corporate management.

Bridge Property Management Corporate Office Contact Information

Bridge Property Management’s official contact page lists:

Bridge Property Management
111 East Sego Lily Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84070

The company also provides an online contact form through its official website.

Bridge Property Management Contact Page

For a legal dispute, consumers should not assume that submitting a general website form satisfies any formal notice, service, claim, or statutory deadline.

Bridge Property Management Phone Number and Email Address

BBB’s current business profile lists (801) 290-3730 as an additional telephone number for Bridge Property Management, L.C. and provides a customer-service email contact function.

Because individual properties maintain their own telephone numbers, residents should verify whether their issue should be directed to the property office or corporate management.

For important disputes, written communication that can be retained or documented is generally more useful than relying solely on telephone calls.

Read: Liletta IUD Lawsuit
Read: Care Access Research Lawsuit
Read: Hairitage by Mindy Lawsuit
Read: Rocket Lawyer
Read: Meaningful Beauty Lawsuit
Read: Native Soap Lawsuit
Read: Goonzquad Lawsuit

Frequently Asked Questions

Final Thoughts

The Bridge Property Management Lawsuit search does not lead to one case with one settlement or one group of affected tenants. Public records show several distinct disputes involving rental application fees, consumer-report disclosures, housing-discrimination allegations, and alleged rent-pricing practices.

The outcomes also differ. Bernuy resulted in an appellate ruling that ultimately left judgment in Bridge’s favor because of the statute of limitations, while Kay was later terminated. The Colorado fee litigation and nationwide Yardi litigation raise different legal questions and should be researched separately.

Current and former tenants should avoid assuming that online complaints prove wrongdoing or that another defendant’s settlement creates an automatic Bridge payout. Keep leases, fee receipts, payment records, screening documents, and written communications. When substantial money, discrimination, eviction, collections, or a filing deadline is involved, individualized legal advice may be appropriate.