Westfield v. Federal Republic of Germany
633 F.3d 409
6th Cir.2011Background
- West heirs sue Federal Republic of Germany for seizure and sale of Walter Westfeld's art collection by Nazi authorities in 1939.
- Westfeld attempted to move the collection to Nashville, but German officials seized it and Lempertz sold it at auction.
- After the war, Westfeld's sentence and fine were voided by a German court; the heirs later learned of the seizure through the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
- The district court dismissed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Heirs appealed, arguing the act's commercial activity exception and a direct US effect.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews de novo, accepting the complaint's facts for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
- The court ultimately holds the Heirs failed to show a direct effect in the United States, so Germany retains immunity and the district court’s dismissal is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Germany's seizure falls within the FSIA commercial activity exception. | Heirs claim the seizure was in connection with Germany's commercial activity (sale on the private market). | Germany contends the actions were not sufficiently connected to a US commercial activity nor did they cause a direct US effect. | Not decided in favor of jurisdiction; even if connected to commercial activity, no direct US effect established. |
| Whether Germany's actions caused a direct effect in the United States. | Seizure prevented transfer of Westfeld's art to Nashville, harming US interests and markets. | Effects were not direct in the US; actions occurred abroad with only derivative ties to the US. | No direct effect; direct-effect requirement not met, so immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weltover, Inc. v. Arg. Republic, 504 U.S. 607 (1992) (direct effect where payment in US markets was expected; performance in US.)
- Keller v. Central Bank of Nig., 277 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2002) (direct effect when funds were to be paid in the United States; failure to pay abroad not a direct effect.)
- American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Lebanese Republic, 501 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2007) (direct effects not shown when action occurs abroad and US-based injury is derivative.)
- DRFP L.L.C. v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, 622 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2010) (discussed direct-effect interpretation; emphasis on where payment/obligation occurs.)
- Am. Telecom Co., L.L.C. v. Republic of Leb., 501 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2007) (treats direct effect and US-based harmed injury in context of commercial activity.)
- Guirlando v. T.C. Ziraat Bankasi A.S., 602 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2010) (notes that mere US citizen injury from foreign state’s actions is insufficient for direct effect.)