See http://www.bslaw.net/050331.pdf
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Monday, April 4, 2005
Page 1
Judge Declines to Toss Suit Over Painting Allegedly Stolen by Nazis
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has denied a motion to dismiss
a suit by the federal government seeking forfeiture of a painting that
was allegedly stolen from its rightful owner during the Nazi occupation
of Paris.
In an order made public Friday, Cooper rejected Marilyn Alsdorf's claim
that ownership of the painting should be decided in a suit that she filed
in the federal district court in her hometown of Chicago. A Northern California
resident, Thomas C. Bennigson, claims that the painting belongs to his
family, and the Justice Department says Alsdorf should be required to give
up the painting as stolen goods.
The controversy is also the subject of a Los Angeles Superior Court
suit brought by Bennigson against Alsdorf and art dealer David Tunkl in
2002.
The California Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether California
state courts have jurisdiction in the matter. Div. Eight of this district's
Court of Appeal said the do not, concluding that Alsdorf did not subject
herself to Californiašs jurisdiction by sending the painting to Tunklšs
gallery, where it was on display for eight months.
The dueling lawsuits concern Picasso's 1922 work Femme En Blanc, or
Women in White.
Flight From Berlin
Bennigson alleges that he is the lawful owner of the painting, which
belonged to his grandmother, Carlota Landsberg, and which Bennigson says
is now worth $10 million. The complaint alleges that Landsberg sent the
painting to a Paris art dealer when she fled Berlin in 1933, but that the
Nazis stole it around 1940.
Alsdorf and her late husband purchased the painting in New York in
the late 1970s for more than $350,000. She sent it to Tunkl in Los Angeles
in December 2001.
The art dealer who sold the painting signed an affidavit saying he
had no knowledge it was linked to a Nazi looting. Alsdorf argues she has
rights to the painting because before she bought it, the New York gallery
purchased it legally from a French dealer.
Bennigson said he did not know the painting existed, or that it had
belonged to his grandmother, until the summer of 2002. The source of the
information, he said, was The Art Loss Register, an international organization
which helps to locate and recover Nazi-looted art for Holocaust victims.
The Art Loss Register allegedly told Tunkl around the same time that
Bennigson was the rightful owner, but Tunkl allegedly didn't tell Alsdorf
until Dec. 13, 2002. Alsdorf ordered Tunkl to send the painting back to
Chicago that same day, Bennigson claims
Bennigson's attorney, E. Randol Schoenberg, said that Alsdorf deliberately
moved the painting to sidestep a new California law extending the statute
of limitations on cases concerning Nazi-looted art.
Seizure Warrant
The controversy took a new turn last fall when the government filed
the forfeiture action here and served Alsdorf with a warrant for the seizure
of the painting. It was subsequently stipulated that Alsdorf can maintain
possession until the case is resolved, and the painting is now hanging
in Mrs. Alsdorf's [Chicago] apartment, Schoenberg said.
Alsdorf moved to dismiss the forfeiture action or transfer it to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, arguing that
court had primary jurisdiction as a result of her having previously sued
there.
But Cooper rejected the argument as being inconsistent with traditional
principles of in rem jurisdiction.
The difficulty with Alsdorf's argument is that the Illinois court has
yet to assert jurisdiction over the res, Cooper wrote.
No process has been served on the painting in the Illinois action;
the painting is not in the custody, control, or possession of the Illinois
court,˛ the judge continued, whereas the seizure by the U.S. marshal under
process issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
established the jurisdiction of that court.
The fact that the seizure was made under a statute dealing with forfeiture
of stolen property that has moved in interstate commerce does not distinguish
the case from more traditional types of in rem actions, the judge concluded.
While the ruling is merely procedural, Schoenberg said Friday it was
a good sign for his client.
I hope that Mrs. Alsdorf will now consider the likelihood that we will
prevail on the merits, the attorney told the METNEWS. We feel pretty confident...the
painting has to be returned to the [family of the] original owner.
An attorney for Alsdorf could not be reached for comment late Friday.
Copyright 2005, Metropolitan News Company