Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

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

V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props.

V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

January 12, 2022, Argued; August 23, 2022, Decided

Docket No. 21-664-cv

Opinion

 [*129]  POOLER, Circuit Judge:

Art dealer Inigo Philbrick sold V&A Collection, LLC an ownership interest in an artwork by Wade Guyton (the "Guyton"). In a second transaction, made without V&A's knowledge or participation, Guzzini Properties Ltd. purchased the Guyton, an artwork by Rudolf Stingel (the "Stingel"), and a third painting from Inigo Philbrick Limited ("IPL"), an entity controlled by Philbrick. In 2019, Guzzini brought an in rem action to quiet title to the Stingel in New York State Supreme Court. V&A attempted to intervene in that action to litigate its claims to the Guyton. The state court denied the motion to intervene, and V&A commenced a separate action against Guzzini for conversion, based on Guzzini's interference with V&A's ownership of the Guyton.

Guzzini [**3]  removed the action to federal court, and then moved to dismiss, in relevant part, for lack of personal jurisdiction. V&A argued that by suing to quiet title to the Stingel in New York state court, Guzzini consented to submit to the jurisdiction of New York courts for all claims arising out of the same agreement with IPL, including its claims regarding the Guyton. The district court (Failla, J.) found that because the two lawsuits did not arise out of the same transaction, Guzzini did not implicitly consent to litigating the dispute over the Guyton in New York. V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props., No. 20-cv-1797, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49106, 2021 WL 982461, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021). We find no basis for jurisdiction over Guzzini based on implicit consent or otherwise, and we therefore affirm.

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.

46 F.4th 127 *; 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 23563 **

V&A COLLECTION, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUZZINI PROPERTIES LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

Prior History:  [**1] Art dealer Inigo Philbrick sold V&A Collection, LLC an ownership interest in an artwork by Wade Guyton (the "Guyton"). In a second transaction, made without V&A's knowledge or participation, Guzzini Properties Ltd. purchased the Guyton, an artwork by Rudolf Stingel (the "Stingel"), and a third painting from an entity controlled by Philbrick. In 2019, Guzzini brought an in rem action to quiet title to the Stingel in New York Supreme Court. V&A attempted to intervene in that action to litigate its claims to the Guyton. The state court denied the motion to intervene, and V&A commenced a separate action against Guzzini for conversion, based on Guzzini's interference with V&A's ownership of the Guyton.

Guzzini removed the second action to federal court, and then moved to dismiss, in relevant part, for lack of personal jurisdiction. V&A argued that by suing to quiet title to the Stingel in New York state court, Guzzini consented to submit to the jurisdiction of New York courts for all claims arising out of the same agreement, including its claims regarding the Guyton. The district court (Failla, J.) found that because the two lawsuits did not arise out of the same transaction, Guzzini did [**2]  not implicitly consent to litigating the dispute over the Guyton in New York. V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props., No. 20-cv-1797, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49106, 2021 WL 982461, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021).

V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49106, 2021 WL 982461 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 16, 2021)

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

ownership, personal jurisdiction, artwork, conversion, in rem action, state court, Collections, alleges, district court, quiet title, lawsuits, courts, rights

Civil Procedure, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, Challenges, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Consent, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Torts, Intentional Torts, Conversion, Elements, Defenses