Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, No. 12-56159 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation seeking to recover a masterpiece French impressionist painting by Camille Pissarro that was allegedly taken from their ancestors by the Nazi regime. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of the Foundation's motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend. Amended California Code of Civil Procedure 338(c)(3) provides for a six-year statute of limitations period for the recovery of fine art against a museum, gallery, auctioneer, or dealer. The court found that the district court erred in concluding that section 338 intruded on foreign affairs and concluded that the district court erred in striking section 338 down as unconstitutional on the basis of field preemption. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the Foundation's due process challenge could not be resolved on the Foundation's motion to dismiss. The court further concluded that the Foundation failed to demonstrate that section 338(c)(3) burdened its rights to free speech and, therefore, section 338(c)(3) did not violate the Foundation's First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Field Preemption. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s order granting the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation’s motion to dismiss the complaint in an action brought to recover a masterpiece French impressionist painting that was allegedly taken from the plaintiffs’ ancestors by the Nazi regime. California Code of Civil Procedure § 338(c)(3) provides for a six-year limitation period for the recovery of fine art against a museum, gallery, auctioneer, or dealer. The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that § 338 intruded on foreign affairs and therefore striking § 338 down as unconstitutional on the basis of field preemption. The panel further held that the district court correctly concluded that the Foundation’s due process challenge to § 338(c)(3) could not be resolved on the Foundation’s motion to dismiss. Finally, the panel held that § 338(c)(3) does not violate the Foundation’s First Amendment rights.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.