Mem'l Hall Museum, Inc. v. Cunningham

• Decision Date: 17 April 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-666-RGJ
• Citation: 455 F.Supp.3d 347
• Parties: MEMORIAL HALL MUSEUM, INC., Plaintiff v. Michael R. CUNNINGHAM, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

455 F.Supp.3d 347

MEMORIAL HALL MUSEUM, INC., Plaintiff

v.Michael R. CUNNINGHAM, Defendant

Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-666-RGJ

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division.

Signed April 17, 2020

Bart L. Greenwald, Duncan Galloway Egan Greenwald, PLLC, Louisville, KY, Lloyd E. Hogue, Mark J. Chaney, III, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff.

Bradley R. Hume, Chad Owens Propst, Joseph A. Wright, Joseph P. Mankovich, Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, Jonathan H. Matthews, Gaddis & Matthews PLLC, Louisville, KY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Rebecca Grady Jennings, District Judge

Defendant Michael R. Cunningham ("Cunningham") moves for summary judgment. [DE 28]. Plaintiff Memorial Hall Museum, Inc. ("Memorial Hall") responded and Cunningham replied. [DE 34, DE 36]. Memorial Hall moved in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Cunningham. [DE 29]. Cunningham responded. [DE 33]. For the reasons below, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED , and the motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART .

BACKGROUND

Memorial Hall is a museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. [DE 1, Compl. at 1]. Memorial Hall sued Cunningham to recover two Civil War uniforms worn by Confederate soldiers, Charles Herbst ("Herbst uniform") and David W. Pipes ("Pipes uniform")(collectively "Stolen Coats"). [Id. ] Memorial Hall alleges that the Stolen Coats now reside with Cunningham. Cunningham is domiciled in Louisville, Kentucky. Id. In July 1979, a member of the Memorial Hall board, Henry Morris, discovered that the Herbst uniform was missing. [DE 28, Def's Mot. Sum. Judg., at 125-26]. By the mid-1980s, Memorial Hall discovered that the Pipes uniform was also missing. Id. at 127. In the mid-to-late 1980s, an attendee of a Civil War Show informed Memorial Hall that the Pipes uniform was on display at the show. [DE 34, Plf's Resp., at 574]. Memorial Hall was unable to gather any more information about the identity of the exhibitor and took no further action toward recovery at that time. Id. Memorial Hall thought about the issue again in 1990 during an inventory, and Chief Morris with the New Orleans Police Department decided to re-investigate. Id. Chief Morris then died and the extent and results of his re-investigation are unknown. Id. at 575.

Cunningham bought the Herbst uniform in 1980. [DE 28, Def's Mot. Summ. Judg., at 127]. In 1986, he publicly displayed the uniform at a Civil War Show. Id. "He also freely allowed numerous colleagues to publish photographs of [the] Herbst uniform in print and online." Id. at 127-28. In 2007, the magazine Civil War Historian published an article that Cunningham wrote about the Herbst uniform, including a picture of the uniform. Id. at 6. Cunningham bought the Pipes uniform in 1985. Id. at 128. An exhibitor publicly displayed the Pipes uniform at a Civil War Show. Id. "As with the Herbst uniform, [Cunningham] ... made photos of the Pipes uniform freely available for print and online publication by various outlets over the years." Id.

Memorial Hall claims that it "does not have the resources to canvas the country searching for missing items, but that [Memorial's] practice was to follow-up on an available information regarding the whereabouts of stolen items when such information becomes available." [DE 34, Plf's Resp., at 572]. In 2011, Cunningham gave photographs of his uniforms to Fred Adolphus, a museum curator who published the pictures on his website. [DE 28, Def's Mot. Summ. Judg., at 129]. Adolphus informed Memorial Hall that he saw the Stolen Coats in Cunningham's collection on October 27, 2015. Id. Memorial Hall then to action to recover the Stolen Coats and filed the current civil litigation on October 24, 2016. Id.

JURISDICTION

First, the Court must ensure its subject-matter jurisdiction. Upon its own motion this Court directed the parties to brief subject matter jurisdiction about whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). [DE 41].

Memorial Hall submitted the affidavit and appraisal report of John Sexton ("Sexton"). Sexton is an appraiser with experience in antique American historical property. [DE 42-1, DE 42-2]. In 2017, Sexton appraised the Stolen Coats at a combined fair market value of $110,000 and combined insurance retail replacement value of $140,000. [DE 42-1 at 668].

Cunningham filed his own affidavit, criticizing the Sexton appraisal and opining the combined value of the uniforms is $54,000. [DE 43-1]. Cunningham asserts that the Stolen Coats are only worth a combined value of $30,263 in 2019 based on inflation [DE 43-1 at 699]. He asserts that the enthusiasm and demand for Civil War collecting has slowed because of the 2008 recession [DE 43-1 at 701]. He also argues that Confederate uniforms have grown unpopular and controversial [DE 43-1 at 702]. Cunningham opposes many comparable uniforms in Sexton's appraisal. He argues some of the values are as based on high and unmet asking prices, reflected sale prices attained more than 10 years ago, or possessing rare or unique features rending them dissimilar. [DE 43-1 at 708–21].

The Court must determine whether a sufficient amount in controversy exists for this Court to exercise jurisdiction. Memorial Hall seeks a judgment "declaring Memorial Hall as the true owner of the Stolen Coats with title superior to all others; [ ] ordering the issuance of a writ directing [Cunningham] to return the Stolen Coats to Memorial Hall; and [ ] all other equitable relief as this Court may deem equitable and appropriate under the law." [DE 1 at 6]. In suits for injunctive relief "the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation." Hunt v. Wash. State. Apple Adver. Comm'n , 432 U.S. 333, 347, 97 S.Ct. 2434 (1977) ; see also Cleveland Hous. Renewal Project v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. , 621 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir. 2010). "In diversity cases, the general rule is that the amount claimed by a plaintiff in his complaint determines the amount in controversy, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount." Rosen v. Chrysler Corp. , 205 F.3d 918, 920-21 (6th Cir. 2000). Some federal courts in Kentucky consider the amount in controversy from the point of view of the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Bedell v. H.R.C. Limited , 522 F. Supp. 732 (E.D. Ky. 1981) ; see also, Family Motor Inn, Inc. v. L-K Enterprises Division Consolidated Foods Corporation , 369 F. Supp. 766 (E.D. Ky. 1973).

Here, the requisite amount in controversy exists. Memorial Hall is the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Memorial Hall's anticipated loss, as explained in the Sexton affidavit, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Sexton is an experienced appraiser. Even discounting Sexton's values according to Cunningham's criticisms, a preponderance of the evidence still establishes the value of the Stolen Coats exceeds the jurisdictional amount and does not show to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount. The Court is satisfied that it may properly exercise jurisdiction over this matter.

STANDARD

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact about an essential element of the nonmoving party's case on which the nonmoving party would bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 60 Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander , 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir. 1987). The Court is not required or permitted, however, to judge the evidence or make findings of fact. Id. at 1435–36. The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Id. at 1435.

A fact is "material" if proof of that fact could establish or refute an essential element of the cause of action or a defense advanced by the parties. Kendall v. Hoover Co. , 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984). A dispute over a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, when a reasonable jury could not find that the nonmoving party is entitled to a verdict, there is no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is appropriate. Id.

Once the moving party carries the initial burden of proving that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present specific facts to prove that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505. To create a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must present more than just some evidence of a disputed issue. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). United States Supreme Court has stated, "there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the [nonmoving party's] evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (citations omitted). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, ...