Kunstmuseum Gehrke-Remund GmbH v. Global Entertainment Properties 1, LLC et al

Filing 23

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion for TRO: KGRs request to enjoin SSA from continuing to display the Collection and immediately return the Collection to KGR is DENIED. All Defendants are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from any further disposition of the Collection until further order of the Court. This Temporary Restraining Order shall be in effect for 14 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 12/23/14. (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
KUNSTMUSEUM GEHRKEREMUND, GMBH,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT
)
PROPERTIES 1, LLC; GLOBAL
)
ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES 2,
)
LLC; and SOUTH SHORE ARTS, INC., )
)
Defendants.
)

Cause Number: 2:14-cv-448

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kunstmuseum Gehrke-Remund, GMBH (“KGR”) and Defendants
South Shore Arts, Inc. (“SSA”) and Global Entertainment Properties 1 (GEP1) appeared
before me for an evidentiary hearing on KGR’s request for a temporary restraining
order. (DE 5) Global Entertainment Properties 2 did not appear, and it is unclear
whether they have yet been served.
By way of background, KGR claims that it owns a collection of replica paintings,
replica and original photographs, replica dresses, and other items representing the work
and life of the artist Frida Kahlo (the “Collection”). KGR claims the Collection is worth
approximately $3.5 million. KGR contracted with GEP1 to display the Collection as a
touring exhibition. One of the stops on the tour was in San Diego. A representative
from KGR visited that exhibition and noted some items were damaged and that items
were being improperly displayed and stored. What’s more, KGR claims that GEP1

stopped paying on the contract, and so KGR commenced legal action in California
against GEP1 for immediate return of the property. The court issued a writ of
possession and an ex parte TRO restraining GEP1 from transporting the Collection out
of California. At the same time, KGR and GEP1 also commenced mandatory arbitration
in California pursuant to the terms of their agreement.
Things get a little murky from here. Somehow, the Collection found its way to
SSA’s facility in Munster, Indiana. SSA claims to have a contract with an entity known
as “GEP2" to display the Collection at its Munster facility through January 25, 2015. The
precise relationship between GEP1 and GEP 2 is clear as mud. In any event, when KGR
found out that its Collection was in Munster, Indiana it filed this action under theories
of replevin and conversion. KGR seeks a TRO, a preliminary injunction and ultimately
the return of the Collection which KGR says was stolen from it in California. KGR also
claims that the Collection is now damaged because SSA is displaying it under improper
conditions.
In support of KGR’s request for a TRO, I heard testimony from Dr. Maria
Remund, one of KGR’s co-owners who observed the exhibition at SSA first-hand. I also
heard testimony from SSA’s witness, Ms. Laura Cutler, the SSA employee in charge of
setting up and overseeing the Kahlo Exhibition at SSA. After hearing argument for
counsel for the parties and the testimony of these two witnesses, along with the various
exhibits I admitted into evidence, I am not convinced that the Collection is currently in
danger of any immediate harm. I do not believe that SSA is displaying or storing the
Collection improperly – or at least not so improperly as to result in the damage
2

observed, or as to put the Collection in any serious risk of future harm. So I will deny
KGR’s request to enjoin SSA from displaying the work.
After hearing from both counsel for KGR and one of KGR’s co-owners, and after
reading all of the briefing submitted to-date, it’s clear to me that KGR’s most pressing
concern is that the Collection not be removed from the State of Indiana. On this point,
KGR raises a valid concern as it appears that the Collection has ended up in Munster in
apparent contravention of the TRO issued (albeit without notice) in California. It’s
going to take some time to sort this mess out, including determining whether the
transport of the Collection to Indiana was actually improper and who is ultimately
entitled to possession of the Collection. GEP1 has presented evidence that they may
have purchased the Collection outright from KGR – a claim KGR adamantly denies.
For now, it is enough to say, that maintaining the status quo is the most prudent thing
to do. Therefore, I will temporarily restrain any of the defendants from removing the
Collection from SSA’s Munster facility. SSA will therefore be permitted to continue the
exhibition undisturbed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
KGR’s request for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART:
(1) KGR’s request to enjoin SSA from continuing to display the Collection and
immediately return the Collection to KGR is DENIED.
(2) All Defendants are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from any further
disposition of the Collection until further order of the Court.
3

(3) This Temporary Restraining Order shall be in effect for 14 days from the date
of this Order, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 23, 2014
s/Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4