Struna v. Leonardi

Background

William Struna alleged that he owned a valuable bronze Picasso sculpture, Head of a Woman (Fernande). He claimed that Renzo Leonardi agreed to help authenticate and sell the sculpture in exchange for half of the sale proceeds. According to Struna, Renzo knew the sculpture was an authentic original Picasso but falsely suggested that it might not be authentic. Struna alleged that Renzo and his wife, Anna Maria Zoni (Leonardi), secretly bought the sculpture from him at a steep discount rather than acting as his agents.

Struna alleged that the sculpture was later authenticated, valued at approximately $20 million to $33 million, and sold through a private Sotheby’s auction in London for $24 million. Renzo died shortly after that sale. Renzo’s children, Antonio Leonardi and Alessandra Leonardi, accepted his estate as heirs, while Anna Maria formally renounced the estate. Struna sued Anna Maria for aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; Antonio and Alessandra for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation; and all three defendants for unjust enrichment.

The Personal-Jurisdiction Ruling

The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning that the court lacked legal authority over the defendants. They alternatively moved under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court considered whether New York’s long-arm statute allowed the defendants to be sued in New York for claims arising from business conducted there.

The court concluded that Struna plausibly alleged that Renzo himself transacted business in New York. The allegations included that Renzo signed the 2013 agency agreement before a New York notary and visited New York to inspect the sculpture. The court nevertheless held that those contacts did not establish jurisdiction over Antonio and Alessandra. They were not shown to be executors or administrators under New York law, and the court declined to treat them as having inherited Renzo’s jurisdictional status merely because they inherited his assets and liabilities.

The court also held that Struna did not plausibly allege jurisdiction over Anna Maria through Renzo as her agent. The allegations plausibly suggested that Anna Maria benefited from, and knew about or consented to, Renzo’s conduct. But they did not plausibly show that she exercised the required control over Renzo. The court found no sufficient allegations of a partnership, joint venture, or conspiracy-based agency. The court therefore did not reach the separate constitutional due-process question.

Jurisdictional Discovery and Disposition

Struna requested discovery to investigate personal jurisdiction over Anna Maria. The court denied that request because Struna had not made a preliminary showing supporting jurisdiction in his third amended complaint. The court also declined to decide whether Struna had stated valid claims under Rule 12(b)(6), because it found no personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED. Struna’s request for jurisdictional discovery as to Anna Maria was DENIED. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.