Altmann v. Republic of Austria

Decision Date04 May 2001
Docket NumberNo. CV 00-8913 FMC (AIJX).,CV 00-8913 FMC (AIJX).
Citation142 F.Supp.2d 1187
PartiesMaria V. ALTMANN, Plaintiff, v. REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, et al. Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California

E. Randol Schoenberg, E. Randol Schoenberg Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Scott P. Cooper, Jonathan E. Rich, Tanya L. Forsheit, Andrea K. Douglas, Proskauer Rose, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

Margot A. Metzner, Janie F. Schulman, Sheila Olivarez Recio, Morrison Bostrom, Morrison & Foerster, Los Angeles, CA, David A. Lash, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Los Angeles, CA, for Amicus.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

COOPER, District Judge.

Plaintiff is the niece and heir of Adele Bloch-Bauer who was a model for, and whose husband was the owner of, works of art painted by Gustav Klimt. Plaintiff brings this action to recover six Klimt paintings which were stolen by the Nazis and are presently in the possession of Defendants. By this Order, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over defendants by virtue of an immunity exception contained in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,1 under 12(b)(3) for lack of venue, under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join indispensable parties, and under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

I. Background
A. Factual Allegations of Complaint
1. The Nature of the Dispute

The present dispute centers on ownership rights to six paintings by the world-renowned artist, Gustav Klimt. Specifically, at issue in the current action are six paintings with the following titles: Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Beechwood, Apple Tree I, Houses in Unterach am Attersee, and Amalie Zuckerkandl (collectively, "the paintings").2 The paintings are currently in the possession of the Republic of Austria ("the Republic") and/or the Austrian Gallery ("the Gallery").3 Plaintiff seeks recovery of these paintings that were owned by her family before they were stolen by the Nazis in the early 1940s in Austria.4

2. Events in Pre-World War II Austria

The paintings at issue were owned by Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, Plaintiff's uncle. Plaintiff's aunt, Ferdinand's wife, Adele Bloch-Bauer, died in 1925. When Adele died, she left a will asking that her husband consider donating six paintings to the Austrian Gallery on his death.5 When the will was probated, the paintings were found to be part of Ferdinand's property, not Adele's. Ferdinand stated in 1926 that he intended to donate the paintings in accordance with his wife's wishes, but did not ever do so. Ferdinand donated one painting to the Gallery in 1936, a painting by Gustav Klimt entitled Schloss Kammer am Attersee III.

3. Plaintiff's Escape to the United States

Plaintiff was married shortly before the Nazi's annexation of Austria in 1938. Plaintiff and her husband escaped Austria to the Netherlands, to Britain, and finally to the United States. In 1942, Plaintiff arrived in Los Angeles, where she has lived since that time. Plaintiff became a naturalized citizen in 1945.

4. Ferdinand and His Artwork — The Nazi Occupation of Austria

Ferdinand left Austria in 1938; the Nazis took his home, his business, and his artwork. Four hundred pieces of porcelain were sold at public auction. Several Nineteenth century Austrian paintings went to Adolph Hitler's and Herman Göring's private collections. Dr. Erich Führer, a Nazi lawyer in charge of liquidating Ferdinand's collection, also benefitted.

The paintings at issue in the present suit were transferred in various ways:

Adele Bloch-Bauer I and Apple Tree I were traded in 1941 to the Austrian Gallery for Schloss Kammer am Attersee III.6 Adele Bloch-Bauer I appears on the cover of the Gallery's official guidebook of the museum.

Beechwood was sold in November 1942 to the Museum of the City of Vienna. In 1947, the Museum offered to return the painting to Plaintiff and Ferdinand's other heirs (collectively, "the heirs") in exchange for refund of the purchase price. The painting was, in the late 1940s, transferred to the Gallery with the assistance of the heirs' lawyer.

Adele Bloch-Bauer II was sold in March 1943 to the Austrian Gallery.

Houses in Unterach am Attersee was kept by Dr. Führer for his personal collection. This painting was later retrieved from that collection by Plaintiff's brother. It was in possession of the heirs' Austrian lawyer in late 1940s and was returned to the Gallery in exchange for export licenses for other works of art.

The original disposition of Amalie Zuckerkandl7 is not known; the painting eventually turned up in the hands of art dealer Vita Künstler, who donated it to the Gallery in 1988.

5. After the War

Ferdinand died just a few months after the war in Europe ended, but he took preliminary steps to retrieve his stolen property. Ferdinand made no bequest in his will to the Austrian Gallery.

In 1946, the Republic enacted a law declaring that all transactions that were motivated by discriminatory Nazi ideology were to be deemed null and void; however, the Republic often required the original owners of such property, including works of art, to repay to the purchaser the purchase price before an item would be returned.

Austrian law also prohibited the export of artworks that were deemed to be important to Austria's cultural heritage. It was the policy after the war to use the export license law to force Jews who sought export of artworks to trade artworks for export permits on other works.

6. Ferdinand's Heirs' Attempts to Secure the Paintings After the War

In 1947, a Swiss court recognized Plaintiff as the heir to 25% of Ferdinand's estate. The heirs retained an Austrian lawyer to attempt to secure return of Ferdinand's property. Plaintiff's older brother was a captain in the Allied Forces, and he personally recovered Houses in Unterach am Attersee from Dr. Führer's private collection. The painting was kept in his or his lawyer's apartment in Vienna pending permission to export the painting.

In February 1948, the Austrian lawyer sought return of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, and Apple Tree I from the Gallery. The Gallery asserted that five of the six paintings at issue were bequeathed to it by the will of Adele Bloch-Bauer in 1926, and that Ferdinand was merely granted permission to keep the paintings during his lifetime. The Gallery demanded the heirs return the remaining paintings to it.

7. The Museum's Actions In Protecting Its Collection

In March 1948, Dr. Garzarolli of the Austrian Gallery learned of the contents and probate proceedings of Adele's will. Specifically, Garzarolli learned that Adele had expressed the wish that Ferdinand donate the paintings to the Gallery, but that Adele had not herself bequeathed the paintings to the Gallery. Garzarolli acknowledged as much in a March 8, 1948, letter to his predecessor wherein Garzarolli expressed his concern at his predecessor's failure to obtain a declaration of gift in favor of the state from Ferdinand.8 Dr. Garzarolli did not reveal to the heirs or their lawyers the files from Adele's probate proceedings that he had in his possession; rather, he prepared to sue the heirs for the remaining paintings.

8. The Exchange — Donations for Export Licenses

In late March 1948, Gallery officials reviewed the artwork in the apartment belonging to Plaintiff's brother or his lawyer to determine whether an export license could be granted. The officials recognized the pieces as part of Ferdinand's collection. Dr. Garzarolli sought the assistance of the Austrian Attorney General in obtaining possession of the remaining three paintings.

In early April, Dr. Garzarolli wrote to Dr. Otto Demus, president of the Federal Monument Agency (the agency in charge of the export licenses), and suggested that the processing of export permits for Ferdinand's collection be delayed "for tactical reasons." Dr. Demus met with the heirs' lawyer regarding the artwork already in Austria and other items of artwork belonging to Ferdinand to be returned to Austria by the Allied forces. The lawyer understood from Dr. Demus that "donations" to the Gallery would have to occur in order to procure export licenses for any of Ferdinand's collection.

The lawyer, on behalf of the heirs,9 agreed to "donate" the Klimt paintings in exchange for permits on the remaining items. The lawyer learned the contents of Adele's will, but thought Ferdinand's expressed intention to donate the Klimt paintings would be binding. The lawyer executed a document purporting to acknowledge the intention to donate the paintings expressed in Adele's will. The lawyer gave the Gallery Houses in Unterach am Attersee on April 12, 1948.

9. 1998 Discovery by Austrian Journalist

In 1998, after the seizure of two paintings by Egon Schiele in New York,10 the Austrian federal minister opened up the Gallery's archives to permit researchers to prove that no looted artworks remained in Austria. Thereafter, an Austrian journalist, Hubertus Czernin, published a series of articles exposing the fact that Austria's federal museums had profited greatly from exiled Jewish families after the war.11 Adele Bloch-Bauer I, reported by the Gallery as being donated to the Gallery in 1936, was revealed to have been transferred to the museum in 1941 with a letter from Dr. Führer signed "Heil Hitler." The archives were closed, but government research essentially confirmed Czernin's stories.

10. New Law Favoring Return of Artwork Stolen by Nazis

In response, in September 1998, a new restitution law was proposed in Austria, designed to return artworks that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 4 Diciembre 2006
    ...See § 1605(a)(3) (using passive voice to focus on the act of the taking rather than on the actor involved); Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1202 (C.D.Cal.2001), aff'd, 317 F.3d 954 (9th Cir.2002), aff'd, 541 U.S. 677, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004). Nazi Germany's ......
  • Frontera Resources Azerbaijan v. State Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 29 Marzo 2007
    ...this case the status of `persons' within the scope of that term as used in the Due Process Clause."); see also Altmann v. Republic of Aus., 142 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1207 (C.D.Cal.2001) (finding implicit support in Ninth Circuit precedent for its holding that foreign sovereigns are not `persons' ......
  • Garb v. Republic of Poland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 24 Junio 2002
    ...68 F.Supp.2d 943, 946 (N.D.Ill.1999) (FSIA applicable to claims virtually identical to those asserted here); Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1201 (C.D.Cal.2001) (FSIA applicable to claim for taking of artwork by Nazis in 1938); see also Princz v. Federal Republic of Germ......
  • Turkmani v. Republic of Bolivia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 28 Marzo 2002
    ...of the FSIA and concluded that "Congress intended the FSIA to be applied retroactively." See id. at 9; Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1201 (C.D.Cal.2001) (determining that the FSIA applies retroactively to pre-1952 events); Haven v. Republic of Poland, 68 F.Supp.2d 943,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Reflections on litigating holocaust stolen art cases.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 38 No. 4, October 2005
    • 1 Octubre 2005
    ...these materials, the Journal will keep them on file for parties interested in reviewing them. (1.) Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (C.D. Cal. 2001), aff'g and remanding, 317 F.3d 954, aff'd on other grounds, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), remanded to 377 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004)......
  • Globalization in art law: clash of interests and international tendencies.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 38 No. 4, October 2005
    • 1 Octubre 2005
    ...Berucksichtigung des deutschen Verfassungsrechts, 2003 KUR--KUNST UND URHEBERRECHT 25, 29. (69.) Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (C.D. Cal. 2001); Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 317 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2002); Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 124 S.Ct. 2240 (2004); Altman......
  • Still Seeing Red: Legal Remedies for Post-communist Russia's Continued Refusal to Relinquish Art Stolen During World War Ii
    • United States
    • Gonzaga University School of Law Gonzaga Journal of International Law No. 12-2, June 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...175. Id. 176. Id. 177. Id. 178. Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (C.D. Cal. 2001). 179. Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 683 (2004). 180. Houpt, supra note 7, at 67. 181. Id. 182. Republic of Austria, 541 U.S. at 685. 183. Id. at 685-86. 184.Malewicz v. City......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT