Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 1 of 15 PageID 319

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF DALLAS DIVISION ARNOLD LEON SCHROEDER, JR., Plaintiff, v. KERN WILDENTHAL, EDWARD A. COPLEY, HARRY S. PARKER, III, GEORGE CHARLTON, IRVIN LEVY, and the DALLAS MUSEUM OF ART, Defendants.

C.A. NO. 3:11cv-00525-B (Jury Demanded)

JOINT STATUS REPORT On June 20, 2011, counsel for Plaintiff Arnold Leon Schroeder, Jr. (Schroeder) and Defendants Kern Wildenthal (Wildenthal), Edward A. Copley (Copley), Harry S. Parker, III (Parker), George Charlton (Charlton), Irvin Levy (Levy), and the Dallas Museum of Art (DMA) (collectively, Defendants) met pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) to confer regarding the contents of a scheduling order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and submitting this Joint Status Report. The parties report follows. 1. Nature of the case and contentions of the parties. a. Schroeders Contentions:

Wyn-Nelle Wendy Reves (Reves) died in France on March 13, 2007. Under French law, which governs her estate (the Estate), Schroeder, as her only child and sole heir, is entitled to 50% of Reves Estate upon her death, regardless of any purported testamentary disposition by Reves. The Estate includes any gifts or other transfers made

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 1

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 2 of 15 PageID 320

for less than fair value within at least the last thirty (30) years preceding her death. Defendants acted in concert, or as agents of one another, to circumvent French law and deprive Schroeder of his legal rights to the true value of the Estate by depleting it of its assets to his detriment, including by arranging and abusing sham corporate structures and trusts through which to accomplish this scheme, and by engaging in self-dealing transactions by taking advantage of Wendys declining health and mental status in the last decade of her life. Schroeder contends that Defendants conduct constitutes fraud for which Schroeder seeks actual and exemplary damages and an accounting and constructive trust over assets in the possession of the DMA, Wildenthal and Copley that belong in the Estate, including disgorgement of the profits earned on these assets, interest, and court costs. b. i. Defendants Contentions. Wildenthal: Estranged from his mother, Wendy Reves, Schroeder alleges

that the defendants, including Dr. Kern Wildenthal, conspired to defraud him of his French-law right to be his mother's "forced heir" entitled to half her estate. Schroeder complains of the 1983 gift of an art collection to the Dallas Museum of Art. As

Schroeder admits in his Complaint, this gift was 10 years before Dr. Wildenthal first met Mrs. Reves in 1993. Schroeder does not allege that Dr. Wildenthal had anything to do with the 1983 gift. Complaining only about other defendants, Schroeder asserts that the art collection belonged to Mrs. Reves and should have been included in her estate when she died in 2007.

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 2

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 3 of 15 PageID 321

Having no basis for suing Dr. Wildenthal over the art collection, Schroeder accuses Dr. Wildenthal of "pressuring" Mrs. Reves into signing a will in 1998 asserting that Mrs. Reves was a British citizen. Under Swiss law, Schroeder would not have been a "forced heir" due to the election of English law. As the Complaint admits, however, a Swiss Court found Mrs. Reves to be a French resident. This admission is a concession that Schroeder was not harmed by the alleged attempt to leave him only what his mother wanted him to have. Schroeder's allegations do not state a claim on which relief can be granted. First, Schroeder has not alleged and cannot show that Dr. Wildenthal owed or breached a fiduciary or other duty to Schroeder, or that Dr. Wildenthal misled Schroeder. Second, Schroeder has not alleged and cannot show that Mrs. Reves's 1998 will was contrary to her intent. Thus, Schroeder has not alleged and cannot prove that but for some unlawful act by Dr. Wildenthal, Mrs. Reves would have willed Schroeder more than the 50% to which he is entitled as a forced heir. Third, on the face of the Complaint, Schroeder's suit, filed in 2011, is barred by limitations. Fourth, Schroeder has not alleged and cannot prove that Dr. Wildenthal wrote Ms. Reves's will or agreed with another defendant about what it should say; without an agreement, conspiracy cannot be established. Last,

because the Complaint does not allege a cognizable underlying tort, it does not allege a conspiracy. ii. Copley: Plaintiff Arnold Leon Schroeder, Jr. is the estranged son of

Wyn-Nelle Russell Reves (Reves), a woman who came into considerable wealth after marrying noted author and art collector Emery Reves, the third husband of Reves and not _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 3

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 4 of 15 PageID 322

the father of the Plaintiff. In this litigation Plaintiff seeks to get his hands on a fortune he was never intended to have and to which he is not entitled under the laws of any nation. Specifically, Plaintiff targets an art collection that was donated to the Dallas Museum of Art in 1983not by Reves but by a charitable entity created by Emery Reves decades beforeand other assets including a villa in France that was likewise never owned by Reves. Despite the donation being made in 1983, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Ed Copley, Revess lawyer since 1998, is somehow responsible. Even Plaintiffs distorted version of the facts, however, acknowledges that Copley had nothing to do with the donation of the art collectionwhich was not Revess personal propertythat occurred nearly two decades before Copley even met Reves. At all times during his representation of Reves from 1998 to her passing in 2007, Copley followed Revess express wishes and directions. Copley and Reves exchanged correspondence over the course of several months and met in person multiple times prior to the November 23, 1998 execution of her will. Every time that Reves sought to modify her will, Copley followed her directions, including Revess decision in 1999 to make a single, specific bequest to Plaintiff of $500,000. As noted in Copleys Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim for relief against Copley. Copley never met Plaintiff, much less had any relationship with him that would give rise to any legal or equitable duties. The thrust of Plaintiffs allegations against Copley is that the will Copley drafted at Revess direction sought to avoid French forced heirship laws. At the time Copley met Reves, she was a British _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 4

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 5 of 15 PageID 323

citizen and a Swiss resident. The laws of Switzerland allowed Reves to choose the law applicable to her will. Reves directed Copley to select the English law so as to avoid forced heirship laws of other countries. Notwithstanding that Copley was following Revess direction to seek to avoid forced heirship under Swiss law, a Swiss court has ruled that Plaintiff is entitled to his forced heirship under French law. Thus, Plaintiff cannot show that he was harmed by Copleys drafting of the will or any subsequent actions Copley took at Revess direction. Plaintiffs claims also fail for a myriad of other reasons including, but not limited to: (i) limitations; (ii) lack of standing; and (iii) lack of harm. iii. DMA Defendants:

During his lifetime, Emery Reves acquired an impressive art collection (Collection), which was held by a charitable entity for future donation to a public museum. Shortly after Emery Reves death in 1981, the Collection was donated to the DMA where it has been for nearly thirty years. As a result, Plaintiff alleges he has been unlawfully deprived of his rightful inheritance, including the Collection, because his mother married Emery Reves, and upon her death, the Collection should have been included as part of her estate. To that end, Plaintiff claims in his Amended Complaint that the DMA Defendants, in the early 1980s, constructively defrauded him and conspired with other named defendants to constructively defraud him of his forced heirship. Plaintiff cannot show that the DMA Defendants engaged in any wrongful, illegal, or tortious conduct whatsoever, much less conduct sufficient to entitle him to a recovery _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 5

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 6 of 15 PageID 324

against the DMA Defendants. The DMA simply accepted the donation of the Collection from a charitable entity. No other named defendants were involved in this donation of the Collectionmeaningthere was no conspiracy among the defendants in regards to the donation. Also, because the Collection and all other property sought by Plaintiff was held by charitable entities, these assets were never part of Plaintiffs mothers estate, and therefore, Plaintiff has no basis to any assets in the lawsuit. The DMA Defendants contend that Plaintiffs constructive fraud claim must be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiff lacks the requisite standing to assert a constructive fraud claim; (2) Plaintiff wholly fails to satisfy the elements of a constructive fraud cause of action; (3) the statute of limitations have long expired; and (4) Plaintiff is conflating his constructive fraud claim with the elements of a non-viable tortious interference with inheritance rights cause of action. Similarly, Plaintiffs conspiracy claim suffers from fatal defects of lack of standing, lapsed statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim as a matter of law. Also, conspiracy, accounting, and constructive trust must be

predicated on wrongful conduct of the DMA DefendantsPlaintiff can maintain none because his constructive fraud claim is without merit. Furthermore, his accounting and constructive trust claims are remedies, not independent causes of action. For these reasons, Plaintiff has no viable claims against the DMA Defendants, and thus, the DMA Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) should be granted. 2. Challenges to Jurisdiction or Venue. None. 3. Pending Motions.
PAGE 6

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 7 of 15 PageID 325

Each of the Defendants has filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Schroeder has responded.

Defendants have each replied. The Motions to Dismiss are ripe for determination. 4. Matters that Require a Conference with the Court. None at this time. 5. Likelihood of Joinder of Other Parties or Pleading Amendment. Schroeder anticipates that after initial discovery, he may join additional parties and/or amend his pleadings. 6. Discovery. a. Schroeder estimates that 14-16 months are needed to conduct discovery in this case. The facts underlying this dispute span a significant number of years and involve witnesses, entities, and documents that are located in Texas, New York, throughout Europe, and in the Bahamas. Schroeder believes that numerous witnesses will need to be deposed, many of whom reside not only in Texas and New York, but also throughout Europe and in the Bahamas. The logistics of coordinating the schedules of four sets of counsel and arranging for these depositions, which will include international travel and the possible application of international law to secure evidence, requires this long of a discovery period. Schroeder needs discovery regarding the circumstances under which certain assets were transferred by Reves to the DMA, the lack of consideration paid for such transfers, the execution and codicil of a will that has never been probated, the formation, management, and abuse of several entities that held or purported to hold title to assets of the Estate, the purported execution and abuse of several powers of attorney, and the pilfering of the Estate following Reves death, as well as the enforceability of the transactions and viability of the entities under which transfers of property were made that Schroeder contends belong to the Estate. This discovery includes Texas and New York entities, Bahamian and Lichtenstein trusts, and European corporate entities, as well as documents and witness testimony regarding the above. Defendants contend that discovery should be stayed temporarily while the Defendants Motions to Dismiss are pending. If the case reaches the discovery stage, Defendants intend to take the depositions of Schroeder and other witnesses, some of whom have provided testimony in support of
PAGE 7

b.

c.

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 8 of 15 PageID 326

Schroeder in litigation in other jurisdictions. Defendants will also need document discovery regarding the relationship between Schroeder, these witnesses, and other parties, including but not limited to any agreements between these persons. d. The parties plan to exchange written discovery to allow the exchange and compilation of relevant documents. There may be fairly complex issues of privilege pertaining to many documents that will have to be determined to complete this first phase of discovery. The parties anticipate deposing more than 20 witnesses in several states and countries. Taking the depositions in foreign countries may entail cumbersome and slow legal process beyond the control of the parties. Also, several party and non-party witnesses are in their late 70s or early 80s. The parties therefore believe that it may be necessary to depose these individuals earlier in the discovery process rather than later, and that certain health/age issues related to these witnesses may need to be accommodated in conducting these depositions.

7.

Electronically Stored Information. a. Schroeder. Schroeder has very little, if any, electronically stored

information. b. Wildenthal. An Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") plan is not

necessary as it relates to Dr. Kern Wildenthal. Because Plaintiff's claims involve events occurring between 1993 and 1998, relevant documents and records are not likely to be stored in electronic form. In any event, Dr. Wildenthal has identified, printed, and preserved all potentially relevant documents, including e-mails. The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center has also preserved any electronic records that may contain Dr. Wildenthal's e-mail or other correspondence. Given the high costs of ESI discovery and the limited amount of relevant ESI, there is no need for an ESI plan at this stage. If the parties later believe it is necessary to conduct extensive ESI discovery, the parties can develop an ESI plan at that time.

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 8

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 9 of 15 PageID 327

c.

DMA Defendants. As for the DMA Defendants, an Electronically Stored

Information (ESI) plan is not necessary because the documents and records believed to be pertinent to this lawsuit are not likely to be stored in electronic form. In this case the relevant activity relating to the DMA Defendants took place in the early 1980s, whereas e-mail correspondence was not used by businesses until the early 1990s and only prevalently until the late 1990s. The DMA Defendants began using e-mail

correspondence in the time period of 1997-2000. Also, the Dallas Museum of Art only began using computers in the early 1990s, therefore, there would be no meaningful electronic data regarding events that occurred in the early 1980s. Considering the high costs of discovery of ESI and the fact that the DMA has little, if any, relevant ESI for the relevant time period, no discovery of ESI (and the incumbent cost of searching) should be permitted between the Plaintiff and DMA Defendants. d. Copley. Defendant Ed Copley maintains that an Electronically Stored

Information ("ESI") plan is unnecessary at this stage of the litigation. If the parties later believe it is necessary to conduct extensive ESI discovery, the parties can develop an ESI plan at that time. Plaintiff's claims against Copley date back to 1998, thus many of the relevant documents and records are not likely to be stored in electronic form. Copley has, of course, preserved all potentially relevant documents, including ESI, that existed at the time he learned of these allegations. 8. Claims of Privilege or Protection. Defendant Copley is a practicing attorney and is affiliated with the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Copley represented Reves from 1998 up to her death _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 9

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 10 of 15 PageID 328

in 2007 and represented her Estate thereafter. The parties anticipate that certain issues may exist regarding whether an attorney-client privilege existed between Copley and Reves, who owns or controls that privilege (if it exists), whether such privilege will be asserted, if it has been asserted, whether it has, will, or should be waived, and/or whether any exceptions to the attorney-client privilege apply. 9. Changes/Limits on Discovery. Other than health issues identified in Section 6 above, the parties are not aware of any changes or limitations regarding discovery, except that this case will require more than ten (10) depositions per side. As noted above, the parties presently anticipate that there may be more than 20 depositions needed. 10. Other Orders Under Rules 26(c) or 16(d) and (c). None at this time. 11. Proposed Deadlines. Joinder of Parties Amendment to Pleadings Filing Motions, including summary judgment and other dispositive motions. Defendants suggest this deadline come after the discovery deadline. Completion of Discovery Designation of Expert Witnesses and Expert Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) January 13, 2012 February 27, 2012 July 6, 2012

October 26, 2012 June 1, 2012

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 10

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 11 of 15 PageID 329

Defendants suggest that their deadlines should be calculated and determined after the pending motions are decided. Schroeder disagrees as he contends that it is time to move forward and Defendants are just stalling. 12. Requested Trial Date, Estimated Length of Trial, and Jury Trial. Schroeder has demanded trial by jury. Schroeder recommends a trial date in February 2013, and estimates that trial of this matter will last 2-3 weeks. 13. Consent to Trial Before a United States Magistrate. The parties do not consent to trial before a Magistrate. 14. Progress Toward Settlement. a. Schroeder. To date there have been no substantive attempts to settle this

lawsuit. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, however, various attempts were made in the context of litigation ongoing in Europe to settle the dispute among the parties including the claims asserted in this action. Although the DMA is not a party to any of the European litigation, the prior discussions led to a meeting in New York in November 2010 at which the DMA was represented. The structure of an acceptable settlement was fairly well developed but the parties remained too far apart in terms of consideration. Schroeder asked the Defendants to mediate before this lawsuit was filed. They declined. b. Defendants. Because of the pendency of many related lawsuits in Europe, However, the

it is not practical for the parties to this dispute to settle just this case.

parties have had many discussions to settle the global dispute that has arisen out of the Estate of Mrs. Reves. The parties will continue efforts toward such a resolution. 15. Forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution.

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 11

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 12 of 15 PageID 330

a.

Schroeder. Schroeder is willing to negotiate directly with the Defendants

to try to resolve the case. However, he is not encouraged to think those discussions will make significant progress. Schroeder has again suggested mediation but understands that Defendants either do not think mediation will help at this point. Schroeder has suggested that a settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge may be helpful and is willing to participate. b. Defendants. The parties have considered the use of the most appropriate

and effective ADR mechanisms. Because the settlement of the global Reves dispute involves other parties not involved in this case, the most likely successful settlement approach in the near term is to work with counsel for every involved party towards a compromise resolution. This likely may include, at the appropriate time, a mediation

with all parties to this case and others present. 16. Other Matters Relevant to the Status and Disposition of this Case. Motion to Stay. Defendants contend that discovery should be stayed pending this Courts determination of the Defendants Motions to dismiss. It would be very unproductive and expensive to undertake the complex and exhaustive discovery sought by Plaintiffs in this case, before the Court has the opportunity to address motions that may dispose of the case. Consequently, Defendants are filing shortly a motion to stay discovery explaining why this Court should properly stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants dispositive motions. Schroeder reiterates that he will oppose any motion to stay discovery. But, that has been covered above. _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 12

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 13 of 15 PageID 331

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Doug K. Butler Gary D. Eisenstat State Bar No. 06503200 gary.eisenstat@figdav.com Doug K. Butler State Bar No. 03516050 doug.butler@figdav.com Valeri C. Williams State Bar No. 24058797 valeri.williams@figdav.com FIGARI & DAVENPORT, L.L.P. 3400 Bank of America Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202 TEL: 214-939-2000 FAX: 214-939-2090 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ARNOLD LEON SCHROEDER, JR.

/s/ John W. Turner George W. Bramblett, Jr. State Bar No. 02867000 george.bramblett@haynesboone.com John W. Turner State Bar No. 24028085 john.turner@haynesboone.com HAYNES & BOONE, LLP 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75219 TEL: 214-651-5000 FAX: 214-651-05940 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT KERN WILDENTHAL

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 13

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 14 of 15 PageID 332

/s/ Raymond E. LaDriere, II Raymond E. LaDriere, II State Bar No. 11817500 rladriere@lockelord.com Ethan M. Lange State Bar No. 24064150 elange@lockelord.com LOCKE LORD LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201 TEL: 214-740-8000 FAX: 214-740-8800 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HARRY S. PARKER, III, GEORGE CHARLTON, IRVIN LEVY, and DALLAS MUSEUM OF ART

/s/ Thomas M. Melsheimer Thomas M. Melsheimer State Bar No. 13922550 melsheimer@fr.com Scott Cashion Thomas State Bar No. 24046964 sthomas@fr.com Martha D. Jones State Bar No. 24061595 jones@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, Texas 75201 TEL: 214-747-5070 FAX: 214-747-2091 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT EDWARD A. COPLEY

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 14

Case 3:11-cv-00525-B Document 39

Filed 11/15/11

Page 15 of 15 PageID 333

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 15, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all parties who have appeared and registered with CM/ECF. /s/ Doug K. Butler Doug K. Butler

_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT STATUS REPORT PAGE 15