902 F.3d 940
9th Cir.2018Background
- G&G Productions (California LLC) sued Rita Rusic (Italian citizen) in 2015 alleging she stole Jean‑Michel Basquiat’s painting Wine of Babylon from her then‑husband Vittorio Cecchi Gori around 1999–2000. Gori assigned any rights to the painting pre‑suit; those rights later passed to G&G.
- Gori sent demand letters in 2000 and pursued proceedings in Italy (including criminal charges filed in 2010, which resulted in acquittal in 2014 on statute‑of‑limitations/separation grounds). G&G learned of an alleged sighting of the painting in 2011 and pursued suit in the U.S. in 2015.
- The district court applied California’s borrowing statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 361), concluded the claims arose in Italy, treated Italian law as authoritative, and granted summary judgment for Rusic as time‑barred under Italy’s ten‑year default limitations rule.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the conversion claim (accrual in 2000; barred under both California and Italian limitations), but vacated and remanded replevin, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief rulings for further factual/legal development.
- The appellate court emphasized that parties invoking foreign law must properly brief it (citations, English translations, qualified expert declarations) and cannot raise new foreign‑law theories for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California’s borrowing statute bars G&G’s claims because they arose in Italy and are time‑barred there | G&G argued some claims may be exempt or tolled under Italian law (and later raised new Italian‑law theories on appeal) | Rusic argued Italian law imposes a ten‑year limitation and G&G’s claims accrued around 2000, so suit is time‑barred | Borrowing statute applies; conversion claim barred. Parties must present foreign law to district court; appellate court refused to entertain new theories raised first on appeal |
| When G&G’s conversion claim accrued | G&G argued accrual occurred later (2014) upon discovery of possessor/location | Rusic argued accrual occurred by 2000 (demand letters, constructive knowledge) | Accrual occurred in 2000 under California law (constructive notice); conversion is time‑barred under both CA and Italy; affirmed |
| When replevin and unjust enrichment claims accrued | G&G contended later accrual or tolling; factual disputes about possession and chain of title | Rusic maintained earlier accrual and/or that claims are time‑barred | Accrual for these claims was not determined below; because factual/legal questions remain, judgment vacated and remanded for further findings |
| Whether declaratory relief claim was moot | G&G sought declaration of ownership; noted disputes over whether Mazzaro or Rusic or Gori owned the painting | Rusic argued claim was moot because G&G pleaded that a third party (Mazzaro) now owns the painting | Summary judgment on declaratory relief vacated and remanded because genuine factual disputes exist about ownership and possession |
Key Cases Cited
- de Fontbrune v. Wofsy, 838 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2016) (Rule 44.1 permits courts to consider any relevant material on foreign law and perform independent research)
- Universe Sales Co. v. Silver Castle, 182 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (courts may accept uncontradicted expert testimony establishing foreign law)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (standard rule that a claim accrues when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
- Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342 (1944) (policy rationale for statutes of limitations to prevent revival of stale claims)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing accrual and discovery rules in stolen‑art cases)
- Orkin v. Taylor, 487 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of discovery rule and constructive notice in accrual analysis)
- Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (accrual can be fact‑intensive)
- United States v. Lindsay, 346 U.S. 568 (1954) (accrual when right comes into existence)