Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Boule v. Hutton

Boule v. Hutton

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

September 5, 2002, Argued ; April 24, 2003, Decided

Docket No. 01-7501, 01-9384

Opinion

 [***1660]   [*86]  COTE, District Judge:

Plaintiffs-appellants Rene and Claude Boule ("the Boules") appeal from the decisions of the district court (1) granting partial summary judgment to defendants-appellees Ingrid Hutton ("Hutton"), the Leonard Hutton Galleries, Inc. ("the Gallery"), Mark Khidekel ("Mark") and Regina Khidekel ("Regina"), (2) finding for defendants on certain of plaintiffs' claims after a bench trial, and (3) denying plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, and vacate in part the decisions of the district court.

At its heart, this is a dispute about the authenticity of works of art (the "Paintings") owned by the Boules. While the Boules believe the Paintings to be early works of the Russian Suprematist artist Lazar Khidekel ("Lazar"), Lazar's son Mark and daughter-in-law Regina (collectively, "Khidekels") claim that they are not. The Khidekels are selling their own collection of Lazar's art through Hutton and her Gallery.

The Boules brought suit under the Lanham Act and state law causes of action to recover for the damage to the value of the Paintings that they assert [**3]  occurred because of statements made by the defendants. The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum held, inter alia, that the Boules had not carried their burden of showing that the Paintings were authentic,  [*87]  that is, painted by Lazar. On the other hand, she found that the Khidekels had falsely and in bad faith denied that Mark had given the Boules certificates acknowledging that at least some of the Paintings were indeed his father's. Applying the special damage rules that pertain to the law of defamation, the district court awarded the Boules nominal damages. Each of these rulings and others entered by Judge Cedarbaum in her three opinions have been challenged on appeal.

BACKGROUND

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

328 F.3d 84 *; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7734 **; 66 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1659 ***; 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74,095; 31 Media L. Rep. 1793

RENE BOULE, CLAUDE BOULE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -- v. -- INGRID HUTTON, LEONARD HUTTON GALLERIES, INC., MARK KHIDEKEL, REGINA KHIDEKEL, Defendants-Appellees,

Subsequent History: As Corrected May 14, 2003. As Corrected June 27, 2003.

Judgment entered by Boule v. Hutton, 320 F. Supp. 2d 132, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9836 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2004)

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal by plaintiffs from certain decisions of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cedarbaum, J.), granting judgment for the defendants on plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim and related state law claims. The defendants had made statements about the authenticity of works of art owned by the plaintiffs, works which the plaintiffs attribute to Russian Suprematist artist Lazar Khidekel. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants' statements were both false and made in bad faith.

Boule v. Hutton, 70 F. Supp. 2d 378, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15731 (S.D.N.Y., 1999)Boule v. Hutton, 138 F. Supp. 2d 491, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3654 (S.D.N.Y., 2001)Boule v. Hutton, 170 F. Supp. 2d 441, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18162 (S.D.N.Y., 2001)

Disposition: Affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part.

CORE TERMS

Paintings, district court, authenticity, collection, Repudiation, damages, summary judgment, Gallery, disparagement, certificates, exhibition, consumers, unfair competition, avant-garde, deceptive, promotion, commercial advertising, commercial speech, burden of proof, cause of action, defamation, misleading, catalogue, Museum

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment, Appellate Review, General Overview, Standards of Review, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Business & Corporate Compliance, Federal Unfair Competition Law, False Designation of Origin, Elements of False Designation of Origin, Trademark Law, Trade Dress Protection, False Advertising, Lanham Act, Contracts Law, Sales of Goods, Breach, Excuse & Repudiation, Torts, Defamation, Defenses, Fair Comment & Opinion, Clearly Erroneous Review, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Antitrust & Trade Law, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, State Regulation, Claims, Intentional Torts, Defamation Per Se, Procedural Matters, Remedies, Business Torts, Trade Libel, Elements, Remedies, Abuse of Discretion, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Relevance of Discoverable Information, Grounds for Relief from Final Judgment, Order or Proceeding, Excusable Mistakes & Neglect, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Motions for New Trials, Newly Discovered Evidence