737 F.3d 613
9th Cir.2013Background
- The Cassirer family alleges a Camille Pissarro painting was taken from Lilly Cassirer under Nazi-era compulsion in 1939; the painting later entered the Thyssen‑Bornemisza collection, now owned by a Spanish foundation (the Foundation).
- Claude Cassirer discovered the painting on display in Spain in 2000 and filed suit in California in 2005; after prior Ninth Circuit rulings on sovereign immunity, Claude died and his heirs substituted in.
- California had enacted a special statute for Holocaust‑era art (§ 354.3) struck down for foreign‑affairs preemption in Von Saher; the Legislature then amended Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338 to add (c)(3), a six‑year limitations rule for actions to recover "works of fine art" against museums, galleries, auctioneers, or dealers.
- The Foundation moved to dismiss, arguing § 338(c)(3) is unconstitutional under foreign‑affairs field preemption and also asserted due process and First Amendment challenges; the district court struck § 338(c)(3) on field preemption grounds and dismissed the Cassirers’ complaint.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it held § 338(c)(3) is not invalid under foreign‑affairs field preemption; the court upheld that the Foundation’s due process challenge cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss and rejected the Foundation’s First Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 338(c)(3) is preempted under foreign‑affairs field preemption | Cassirers: statute is a neutral extensions of limitations for fine art and does not intrude on foreign affairs | Foundation: statute effectively re‑opens wartime/foreign injury claims and duplicates § 354.3’s problematic features | Reversed: § 338(c)(3) does not intrude on federal foreign‑affairs power; not preempted |
| Whether § 338(c)(3) creates a targeted wartime remedy (functional equivalence to § 354.3) | Cassirers: § 338(c)(3) is general (any fine art), not a wartime‑specific remedy | Foundation: the statute’s practical effect allows Holocaust‑era claims and thus implicates foreign policy | Held for Cassirers: § 338(c)(3) is broader and not functionally equivalent to § 354.3 |
| Whether § 338(c)(3) violates the Foundation’s due process rights by retroactively reviving barred claims | Cassirers: Legislature may rationally extend limitations; no vested title shown | Foundation: extension deprives Foundation of vested property and violates due process | Affirmed in part: court held due process challenge cannot be decided on dismissal — factual issues remain (whether title vested) |
| Whether § 338(c)(3) violates the First Amendment by targeting museums/galleries | Cassirers: statute regulates timing of claims, not expression | Foundation: statute targets museums for unfavorable treatment, burdens speech | Reversed for Foundation: statute does not burden speech and survives rational‑basis review |
Key Cases Cited
- Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 670 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) (foreign‑affairs preemption framework and distinction between field and conflict preemption)
- Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968) (state law struck down where it had direct impact on foreign relations)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 578 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2009) (California statute for Holocaust‑era artwork held preempted)
- Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003) (limits on state remedies addressing foreign wartime wrongs)
- Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 (1885) (historical rule on retroactive repeal of statutes of limitations and vested rights)
- Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304 (1945) (state may extend or repeal a statute of limitations where lapse has not vested title)
- Starks v. S. E. Rykoff Co., 673 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1982) (extension of a lapsed statute of limitations does not necessarily violate due process)
- Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983) (special taxes on the press subject to strict scrutiny)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (1992) (retrospective economic legislation reviewed under rational‑basis standard)