6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the REPUBLIC OF USTRIA and the AUSTRIAN GALLERY under 28 U.S.C. §1330 because these are claims as to which neither party is entitled to immunity under 28 U.S.C. §1605-7 (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA")). See Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 711 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992). Process shall be served on both defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1608.
7. ALTMANN is a citizen of California. The AUSTRIAN GALLERY is an agency and subject of the REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, a foreign state. The amount in controversy is approximately $150 million.
8. This action concerns rights in property expropriated in violation of international law, namely six paintings by Gustav Klimt which were taken from Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer as a result of discriminatory taxes levied by the Nazis. After the Second World War, the AUSTRIAN GALLERY withheld these paintings from Ferdinand’s heirs by deception, fraud and duress utilized in furtherance of the violations of international law committed by the Nazis. The truth was revealed only recently, but the AUSTRIAN GALLERY has still refused to relinquish the paintings to Ferdinand’s heirs.
9. Before January 1, 2000, the property at issue was in the possession of the AUSTRIAN GALLERY, an entity that was an agency and instrumentality of the REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA. Since January 1, 2000, the property at issue is in the possession of the REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA and housed in the museum operated by the AUSTRIAN GALLERY.
10. The AUSTRIAN GALLERY is engaged in commercial activity in the United States.
a) The AUSTRIAN GALLERY edits and publishes a museum guidebook in English, which is sold to U.S. citizens and is available for purchase in the United States, and in Los Angeles County. The AUSTRIAN GALLERY asserts U.S. copyright ownership over this book, which is also published in New York. One of the looted artworks at issue in this action, the portrait of ALTMANN's aunt, Adele Bloch-Bauer I, is reproduced on the cover of the guidebook.
b) The AUSTRIAN GALLERY is visited by thousands of U.S. citizens each year, and accepts entrance fees from these visitors. The artworks that are the subject of this action are some of the main attractions of the museum. In its gift shop, the AUSTRIAN GALLERY sells memorabilia, including numerous images of the looted artworks at issue in this action, to U.S. citizens. The AUSTRIAN GALLERY accepts payment by U.S. credit card for these purchases.
c) The AUSTRIAN GALLERY engages in and receives the benefit of tourist advertising in the United States conducted by the official Austrian National Tourist Office, a non-profit agency sponsored and controlled by the REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, which has offices in various cities in the United States, including an office in Los Angeles, California. This advertising often features the AUSTRIAN GALLERY's famous collection of paintings by Gustav Klimt, which is comprised in substantial part by the looted artworks that are the subject of this action. Currently, the AUSTRIAN GALLERY is promoting its fall show entitled “Gustav Klimt and the Image of Women in Europe,” which will be on display from September 20, 2000 to January 7, 2001. The looted pictures that are the subject of this action will be the main works in this exhibition. The AUSTRIAN GALLERY is borrowing artworks from the United States for this exhibition. The AUSTRIAN GALLERY is actively promoting this exhibition in America and towards Americans with the intention of attracting American tourists to this exhibition for the purpose of charging them entrance fees and selling merchandise to them.
d) The AUSTRIAN GALLERY has in the past also loaned artworks, including, upon information and belief, at least one of the works at issue in this action, Adele Bloch-Bauer I, to museums in the United States, and receives reciprocal benefits thereby.
e) In sum, the AUSTRIAN GALLERY uses the looted artworks at issue in this action for commercial activities directed at U.S. citizens, including citizens of Los Angeles, California.
11. The REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA is engaged in numerous other commercial activities in the United States, and in Los Angeles County in particular.
a) The REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA has a consular office in Los Angeles, California, which serves to promote Austrian cultural and business interests in California and the Western United States.
b) The REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA actively promotes its cultural interests in Los Angeles, including for example the interests of Austrian filmmakers. Representatives of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education and Culture routinely visit Los Angeles as part of their mission to promote Austrian culture.
c) The Austrian National Tourist Office, a non-profit agency sponsored and controlled by the REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, has an office in Los Angeles. It conducts advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Austria in California and throughout the United States.
d) The REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA owns real property in Los Angeles, which is used to promote Austrian business interests.
12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1391(f)(1) because the REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA and the AUSTRIAN GALLERY are in breach of their obligation to deliver the six Klimt paintings to ALTMANN in this District, and because ALTMANN presently resides and resided in this District at the time of the misappropriation of the property at issue from her and afterwards. There is no other venue in the United States that would be more appropriate for this action than Los Angeles County. Austria is not a feasible venue for this action because the Austrian courts require payment of fees in proportion to the amount in controversy. In this case, those fees far exceed the value of ALTMANN’s assets. ALTMANN applied to the Austrian courts for a waiver of the fees, which was only partially granted so that ALTMANN would have been required to expend all of her available assets other than her house – including her entire life savings – in order to proceed. The REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA appealed this ruling, seeking to raise the level of costs even higher. As a result, ALTMANN cannot afford to proceed in Austria. Thus, there is no reasonable venue other than this court for this important matter to be heard.
