U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Berg v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, Docket No. 20-1765

Stolen Artworks

 

Suit is Brought in the U.S.

 

Defendants Are Municipal Museums in the Netherlands

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602, et seq.

 

Expropriation Exception

 

Municipal Museums (NL)

 

Lack of Venue?

 

 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:18-cv-03123-BHH)

 

 

Bruce Berg, a resident of South Carolina, brought suit for recovery of paintings and other works of art taken under duress by the Nazis following the German invasion of theNetherlands in 1940. At the time of the German invasion, Berg’s grandfather, Benjamin Katz, was a partner in Firma D. Katz, which owned and operated three art galleries specializing in the sale of paintings by Dutch Old Masters. Following World War II, many of the stolen artworks were returned to the Netherlands by the United States military under Collection Point Agreements in which the Netherlands agreed to hold the art as “custodians pending the determination of the lawful owners thereof.” See, e.g., J.A. 100. Firma D. Katz was liquidated in 1974, and the artworks have not been returned to the heirs of its partners, Benjamin and Nathan Katz.

 

Berg brought suit in the District of South Carolina against the Kingdom of the Netherlands; Ministry of Education, Culture & Science of the Netherlands (“Ministry”); Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (“RCE”); and several private and public municipal museums in the Netherlands holding the artworks. Claiming ownership of the artworks, Berg brought claims for declaratory judgment, conversion, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust, arising from the alleged taking and retention of the artworks in violation of international law.

 

 

The four public municipal museums are Dordrechts Museum, Museum de Lakenhal, Museum Het Prinsenhof, and Historisch Centrum Het Markiezenhof. The amended complaint seeks restitution for 143 paintings and other artworks, thirteen of which are alleged to be held in the municipal museums. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 37, 38, 48, and 49.

 

 

As such, this appeal concerns only two groups of defendants: (1) the Ministry and RCE, and (2) the four municipal museums. As to the Ministry and RCE, we affirm the district court’s judgment that the Ministry and RCE, as political subdivisions of the Netherlands, are not subject to suit in federal court under the expropriation exception of the FSIA. As to the municipal museums, we affirm their dismissal for lack of venue.

 

 

Under the FSIA, “a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state only if that claim falls within one of the FSIA’s exceptions to immunity.” Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq, 666 F.3d 205, 206 (4th Cir. 2011). As Berg’s claim does not arise from commercial activity by defendants in the United States, the only applicable exception to sovereign immunity under the FSIA is the expropriation exception found in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3).

 

 

As to the municipal museums, the district court dismissed the complaint against them for lack of venue. Venue in civil actions against a foreign state is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f), and the district court found that subsection 1391(f)(3) governed the municipal museums as agencies or instrumentalities of the Netherlands. That subsection permits venue in any judicial district in which an agency or instrumentality “is licensed to
do business or is doing business.” § 1391(f)(3). Though the district court found the municipal museums had engaged in commercial activity in the United States, the venue provision more narrowly focused on whether they did business in the District of South Carolina. So the allegations of nationwide solicitation and sales did little to show that the municipal museums are “doing business” in the District of South Carolina. 2020 WL 2829757, at *16. On appeal, Berg nowhere challenges this ruling.

 

 

(The district court concluded that the municipal museums were agencies or instrumentalities of the Netherlands lacking sovereign immunity pursuant to the second clause of the FSIA’s expropriation exception. That decision is not challenged on appeal and is consistent with the holding in Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“The paintings are owned by the Republic, but are exhibited by the Gallery. The exhibition of these paintings fulfills the ‘owned or operated by an agency of instrumentality’ requirement. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim meets the ‘owned or operated’ requirement of the expropriation exception of the FSIA.”))

 

As to the municipal museums, the district court’s ruling was based on the lack of sufficient allegations that the municipal museums did business in South Carolina as required by § 1391(f)(3). In contrast, the district court did base its venue ruling as to the private museums on its finding that personal jurisdiction was lacking as to them.

 

(…) The district court’s dismissal for lack of venue over the municipal museums is forfeited. Nothing in this record suggests that the district court’s venue ruling as to the municipal museums constitutes fundamental error or results in a miscarriage of justice warranting reversal.

 

To be sure, Berg’s claim that the Nazi regime stole art owned by his grandfather’s partnership presents a strong moral claim. However, as the Second Circuit noted in Garb v. Republic of Poland, “strong moral claims are not easily converted into successful legal causes of action.” 440 F.3d at 581 (internal citation omitted). “Despite the severe injuries asserted by Berg, the capacity of United States courts to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims hinges on a legal inquiry narrowly circumscribed by statute.” Id. Because the Ministry and RCE are political subdivisions of the Netherlands, the FSIA bars suit against them. While claims against the municipal museums, as agents and instrumentalities of the Netherlands, fall within the expropriation exception to the FSIA, as for venue, it is improper in South Carolina. As Berg did not ask the district court to transfer venue or otherwise appeal the venue ruling as to the municipal museums, the district court’s ruling as to venue compels affirmance of the judgment below. 

 

 

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Feb. 3, 2022, Berg v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, Docket No. 20-1765, Published)