## Facts

- Henri Matisse painted *Portrait of Greta Moll* after Greta Moll’s husband, Oskar Moll, commissioned the work.
- After World War II, Greta Moll owned the painting.
- In 1947, Greta gave the painting to Gertrude Djamarani (Oskar Moll’s former student) with instructions to take it to Switzerland and deposit it with an art dealer for safekeeping.
- Djamarani did not follow those instructions; instead, she sold the painting without Greta’s authorization or knowledge and kept the proceeds.
- The painting later changed hands and, in 1979, the National Gallery of Art in London (the Gallery) acquired it.
- The Gallery functioned as a public instrumentality of Great Britain.
- In 2015, Greta Moll’s heirs—Oliver Williams, Iris Filmer, and Margarete Green—demanded that the Gallery return the painting; the Gallery refused.
- In 2016, the heirs sued the Gallery, Great Britain, and American Friends of the National Gallery, London Inc. (a U.S.-based nonprofit associated with the Gallery), asserting claims seeking return of the painting and related relief.
- The Gallery and American Friends moved to dismiss, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) barred the suit.

## Issues

1. Whether Great Britain and the Gallery were immune from suit under the FSIA.
2. Whether the FSIA expropriation exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3)) applied where the alleged wrongful transfer began as a private, unauthorized sale by a non-state actor.
3. Whether plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the expropriation exception’s U.S. nexus, including whether a U.S. nonprofit’s activities could supply or be attributed to the foreign instrumentality’s required commercial activity.
4. Whether, apart from immunity, the claims were barred by timeliness defenses (statutes of limitation and/or laches) based on the long delay between the 1947 sale, the 1979 acquisition, and the 2016 lawsuit.

## Decision

- The court granted the motions to dismiss and dismissed the action.
- Great Britain and the Gallery were held immune under the FSIA because plaintiffs did not plausibly plead facts bringing the case within the FSIA’s expropriation exception.
- The court concluded that allegations of a private theft or unauthorized sale—without a sovereign “taking”—did not satisfy the requirement that the property be “taken in violation of international law.”
- The court also found plaintiffs did not adequately plead the expropriation exception’s required U.S. commercial-activity connection as to the foreign sovereign defendants; activity by a separate U.S. nonprofit did not, without more, supply jurisdiction over the sovereign or its instrumentality.
- Claims against American Friends were dismissed because the pleaded theories did not provide a viable path to relief that avoided the sovereign-immunity and ownership questions tied to the Gallery and Great Britain.
- In the alternative, the court determined the claims were stale and subject to dismissal on timeliness grounds, including laches, given the decades-long gap and the resulting prejudice to defendants and factfinding.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities are presumptively immune from suit in U.S. courts under the FSIA unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing a specific statutory exception applies.
- The FSIA expropriation exception requires, among other elements, that (a) rights in property are at issue, (b) the property was “taken in violation of international law,” and (c) a defined U.S. connection exists (such as the foreign instrumentality’s commercial activity in the United States connected to the property).
- A private misappropriation or unauthorized sale, standing alone, is not a sovereign “taking” and generally does not satisfy the expropriation exception’s “taken in violation of international law” element.
- For the expropriation exception’s U.S. nexus, courts look to commercial activity by the foreign state or its instrumentality; contacts by a separate organization are not automatically imputed for FSIA jurisdiction.
- Even when a plaintiff seeks recovery of identifiable artwork, long delays can support dismissal on timeliness defenses, including laches, where the passage of time impairs evidence and makes adjudication unfair.

## Conclusion

In *Williams v. National Gallery of Art*, Greta Moll’s heirs sought to recover a Matisse portrait held by a public museum in London, suing the Gallery, Great Britain, and a U.S. nonprofit affiliate. The court dismissed the case because the sovereign defendants were immune under the FSIA and plaintiffs did not meet the expropriation exception, particularly where the alleged wrongdoing began with a private unauthorized sale and the pleadings failed to establish the statute’s required U.S. commercial-activity connection. The court also concluded, in the alternative, that the claims were too late and subject to dismissal on timeliness grounds, including laches.


Williams v. National Gallery of Art, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154445 (2017)