Hoffmann v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 30 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 98-0857(HHK).,CIV.A. 98-0857(HHK). |
| Citation | 266 F.Supp.2d 27 |
| Parties | Robert H. HOFFMANN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Shelley Cashion, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey Axelrad, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs, German citizens, filed this action against the United States and the Attorney General of the United States in 1989, seeking to recover photographic archives and paintings formerly belonging to Heinrich Hoffmann, Sr. After fourteen years of litigation, only plaintiffs' claim for an implied-in-fact contract of bailment with respect to the non-vested portion of the photographic archive remains.
Before this court are: (1) plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended consolidated complaint [# 36]; (2) plaintiffs' motion to transfer this case, in whole or in part, to the Court of Federal Claims [ #39]; (3) plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the court's June 28, 1999, decision [ #47]; (4) defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment [ #4]; (5) defendants' motion i'or a protective order staying all discovery [ # 43]; and (6) plaintiffs' motion to compel, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 37 [ # 54]. Upon consideration of these motions, the oppositions thereto, and the record of this case, the court concludes that plaintiffs' motions must be denied, defendants' motion for a protective order must be denied as moot, and defendants' renewed motion for' summary judgment must be granted.
The case grows out of plaintiffs' efforts to obtain the return of, or compensation for, various property, owned or compiled by Heinrich Hoffmann Sr. ("Hoffmann Sr.") and his son, Heinrich Hoffmann Jr. ("Hoffmann Jr.").1 Hoffmann Sr. and Hoffmann Jr. are both deceased. Plaintiffs are the heirs of Heinrich Hoffmann, Jr. (Robert H. Hoffmann, Heidemarie Kriiger, Susanne Hustadt) and the Estate of Henriette von Schirach, Dr. Klaus V. Schirach, Executor.
Plaintiffs initially filed this lawsuit seeking the return of, or compensation for: (1) four watercolors painted by Adolph Hitler; (2) a photographic archive compiled by Hoffmann Sr. and his son, Hoffmann Jr., part of which officially vested in the possession of the United States in 1951 and part of which did not; and (3) the "Time-Life archive," a photographic archive given to the United States in the early 1980's by Time-Life, Inc. Plaintiffs' claims to the watercolor paintings, the vested portion of the photographic archive, and the Time-Life archive have been extinguished by prior rulings of this and other courts. Plaintiffs' only surviving claim is for the non-vested portion of a photographic archive compiled by Hoffmann Sr. That claim will be explored in much greater detail below.
This case has had a long and complicated past. Plaintiffs in the present case, together with Texas businessman Billy F. Price, initially filed suit in the Southern District of Texas in 1983. In 1989, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in plaintiffs' favor. Price v. United States, 707 F.Supp. 1465 (S.D.Tex.1989). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to certain claims and without prejudice as to others. Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1995). On petition for rehearing, the Fifth Circuit held that its dismissal was also without prejudice with respect to the archives not covered by the vesting order. Price v. United States, 81 F.3d 520 (5th Cir.1996).
The instant case was consolidated in the Southern District of Texas on October 2, 1997, from two actions filed by the same plaintiffs, in 1997 and 1989. On March 24, 1998, Billy F. Price was dismissed as a plaintiff, and the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In a memorandum opinion docketed June 28, 1999, this court rejected plaintiffs' claims based on theories of implied-in-fact contract (bailment), Fifth Amendment takings, and tortious conversion and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims except for those relating to the Time-Life archive. Hoffmann v. United States, 53 F.Supp.2d 483 (D.D.C.1999). After relinquishing their Time-Life archive claim, plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal, challenging this court's adverse judgment. See Notice of Filing, Sept. 10, 1999, On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed this court's decision in part, but vacated the grant of summary judgment insofar as it related to plaintiffs' implied-in-fact bailment claim with respect to the non-vested portion of the photographic archive. Hoffmann v. United States, 17 Fed.Appx. 980 (Fed.Cir.2001). This case is before this court on remand; plaintiffs' bailment claim for the non-vested portion of the photographic archive concerns us here.
On remand, plaintiffs have not sat idly by, however. They have filed a number of motions requiring the court's attention. In this memorandum opinion, the court will address the following: (1) plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended consolidated complaint; (2) plaintiffs' motion to transfer this case, in whole or in part, to the Court of Federal Claims; (3) plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the court's June 28, 1999, decision holding that nonresident friendly aliens are not entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment; (4) defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment; (5) defendants' motion for a protective order; and (6) plaintiffs' motion to compel. The court will explore each matter in turn.
The court will first address plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint: (1) to increase their damage claim for the non-vested portion of the photographic archive from $9,000 to $73,000,000 because, plaintiffs claim, there are more non-vested photographs than they originally thought, and so their damages are far greater than they originally claimed; (2) to raise the Hague Treaty as an additional basis of recovery; and (3) to "restate everything that was in the case from the beginning, ... all in one pleading so that anyone new to the case can ascertain everything necessary in one place." Pis.' Reply at 2.2
Defendants oppose this motion, arguing that plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint "offers no new claims and, instead, seeks to relitigate issues already finally decided." Defs.' Opp'n to Pis.' Mot. for Leave to File at 1. In addition, according to defendants, the motion "is one more desperate effort to inject additional issues [into the case] to keep the litigation alive despite the solid defenses defendants have raised and which the Federal Circuit has suggested this Court, rule upon." Id. at 5-6.
A party seeking to amend her complaint a second time may do so only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). A decision to grant such leave is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Doe v. McMillan, 566 F.2d 713, 720 (D.C.Cir.1977). Leave is to be freely given, however, and if a court denies a plaintiffs motion for leave to amend, the court must provide a sufficiently compelling reason for the denial. Adequate reasons are: undue delay, undue prejudice to the nonmoving party, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, or futility of amendment. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227; Firestone: v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996); Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Thompson, 259 F.Supp.2d 39, 57-58 (D.D.C.2003).
In this case, the court concludes that plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended consolidated complaint must be denied because: (1) there has been undue delay; (2) the amendment would unduly prejudice defendants; and (3) plaintiffs' conduct raises the spectre of bad faith.
Plaintiffs have litigated this action, in one form or another, for nearly twenty years. The case has made its way though two different district courts,3 three appellate proceedings,4 two appellate rehearings,5 two unsuccessful certiorari petitions,6 and is now on remand from the Federal Circuit. Plaintiffs have been afforded ample opportunity to advance their best arguments. Nevertheless, plaintiffs did not file the instant motion for leave to file an amended, consolidated complaint until July 9, 2002-although plaintiffs concede that they had at their disposal all the facts necessary to raise the claims raised for the first time here by 1997, at the latest. See Pis.' Reply to Defs.' Opp'n to Pis.' Mot. for Leave to File at 1. Under these circumstances, the court finds that there has been undue delay, militating in favor of a denial of plaintiffs' motion.
Other courts have reached this same conclusion when faced with delays far shorter in duration. See, e.g., Atchinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 427 (D.C.Cir.1996) (); Doe, 566 F.2d at 720 ()...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary
...of the parties. The assent of the parties to a bailment, however, may be implied from the conduct of the parties. Hoffmann v. United States, 266 F.Supp.2d 27, 39 (D.D.C.2003) (“An implied-in-fact bailment contract with the Government is created if property is seized and there is ‘a promise,......
-
Johnson v. Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2001-4
...actual nor constructive knowledge of the facts constituting [her] cause of action despite her due diligence." Hoffmann v. United States, 266 F.Supp.2d 27, 42 (D.D.C.2003) (internal quotation Here, Plaintiff's argument for fraudulent concealment may be difficult to establish, for three reaso......
-
TELTSCHIK v. WILLIAMS & JENSEN, PLLC, Civil Action No. 08-00089 (HHK).
...party." Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc., 810 F.2d 243, 247 (D.C.Cir.1987); see also Hoffmann v. United States, 266 F.Supp.2d 27, 34 (D.D.C.2003) (stating that "a plaintiff ... cannot be permitted to `circumvent the effects of summary judgment by amending the complain......
-
Mwani v. Qaeda
...latest).17 These facts provide an independent basis to deny the motion for leave to amend for undue delay. See Hoffman v. United States , 266 F. Supp. 2d 27, 33 (D.D.C. 2003) (finding undue delay where the plaintiffs had "litigated this action, in one form or another, for nearly twenty year......