Bennigson v. Alsdorf

2004 WL 803616 (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bennigson v. Alsdorf

California Court of Appeal
2004 WL 803616 (2004)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

In 1975, Marilyn Alsdorf (defendant) purchased a Pablo Picasso painting from a New York gallery and hung the painting in her Chicago home. In 2001, Alsdorf let Los Angeles art-gallery owner David Tunkl display the painting for a month. In early 2002, Tunkl identified a potential French buyer and had the painting shipped to Switzerland. Alsdorf learned that the Art Loss Register believed the Nazis had stolen the painting and that a Swiss foundation had claimed ownership. Alsdorf retained Tunkl’s attorney, Stephen Bernard, to resolve the matter. In the spring or summer, Tunkl identified another potential buyer and had the painting shipped back to Los Angeles. Thomas Bennigson (plaintiff), a California resident who was the grandson and heir of the owners of the looted painting, learned that the painting was at Tunkl’s gallery. Bennigson’s lawyer, Randol Schoenberg, contacted Bernard. Alsdorf learned on December 13 that someone else was claiming ownership and instructed Tunkl to return the painting to her. In a December 16 email to Bernard, Schoenberg identified Bennigson as the person claiming ownership. On December 18, Bernard advised Schoenberg that the painting was en route to Chicago. The next day, Bennigson sued Alsdorf for replevin and injunctive relief. The painting left California on December 20 shortly before the court granted Bennigson a temporary restraining order. On Alsdorf’s motion, the court quashed service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, Bennigson argued that California had jurisdiction over Alsdorf because she purposely availed herself of the state’s benefits and protections, the painting was in California when the suit was filed, and Alsdorf attempted to evade jurisdiction by having the painting returned to Chicago.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Boland, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 798,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership