The Degas Sculture Project Ltd v. Long
- Andrew Carter
- 1:14-cv-04304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd v. Long, Judge Carter denied Long’s motion to vacate the judgment and denied her motion to stay discovery as moot.
Rose Ramey Long’s $396,000 judgment remained in place, and her request to pause post-judgment discovery was denied as moot. The opinion also states that the jury had awarded $25,000 on her counterclaim against Walter Maibaum and $25,000 against Carol Conn.
What happened
The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd v. Long involved a dispute over who should bear the costs of a missing bronze cast from an Edgar Degas sculpture. After a jury found for the plaintiffs on their breach-of-contract claim and awarded $396,000 against Rose Ramey Long, the court entered judgment on June 27, 2018.
Long asked the court to vacate that judgment, arguing that it resulted from fraud because Walter Maibaum described ownership of the sculpture differently in this case and in a related criminal prosecution. The court concluded that the evidence supported the plaintiffs’ ownership account, that Long did not show how the alleged discrepancy prevented her from presenting her case, and that she had an opportunity to challenge the evidence at trial.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Long’s motion to vacate the judgment. He also denied as moot her motion to stay post-judgment discovery.
The detailed version
- The Degas Sculture Project Ltd v. Long · No. 1:14-cv-04304
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 5, 2020
Background
The case arose from a failed art transaction involving a bronze cast from Edgar Degas’s sculpture La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans. The parties were fine-art dealers who attempted to sell the bronze to Luke Brugnara. The opinion states that Brugnara stole the sculpture and was later convicted of several offenses in a separate criminal case.
The parties disputed who should bear the costs associated with the missing sculpture. After a jury trial held from May 29, 2018, through June 7, 2018, the jury found for the plaintiffs on their breach-of-contract claim and awarded $396,000 against Rose Ramey Long. The jury also found for Long on her breach-of-contract counterclaim and awarded $25,000 against Walter Maibaum and $25,000 against Carol Conn. The court entered judgment on June 27, 2018.
Motions and Legal Standard
Long moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) to vacate the judgment, claiming that the judgment had been obtained through fraud on the court. She argued that Maibaum testified in the separate Brugnara prosecution that he personally owned the bronze, while he testified in this case that Modernism Fine Arts Inc. and The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd. owned it.
Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. The court stated that the motion had to be filed within a reasonable time and no more than one year after the judgment or proceeding. It also explained that the person seeking relief must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the challenged conduct prevented her from fully and fairly presenting her case. Rule 60 relief is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances; it cannot be used simply to relitigate the merits.
Long also moved to stay post-judgment discovery while the court considered her motion to vacate.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Long’s fraud argument. First, it found that the evidence presented to the court and jury, including the invoice for the bronze, indicated that The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd. owned the sculpture. The court therefore concluded that the complaint and testimony in this case accurately reflected ownership.
Second, the court found that Long did not connect the alleged discrepancy to the jury’s verdict or explain how it prevented her from fully and fairly presenting her case. The court characterized her allegations as conclusory. It also noted that the parties agreed Maibaum owned both Modernism Fine Arts Inc. and The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd., which could reduce any effect of the alleged discrepancy.
Third, the court stated that the materials Long cited had been used throughout the trial and that she had ample opportunity to challenge the evidence or bring the alleged discrepancies to the court’s attention. On that basis, the court concluded that Long had not shown the kind of grave miscarriage of justice required for relief from the judgment.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Long’s motion to vacate the court’s judgment. The court also denied as moot Long’s motion to stay post-judgment discovery.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.