Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum, No. 12-55733 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed the dismissal of her action claiming that she was the rightful owner to two works of art my Lucas Cranach, "Adam" and "Eve." Plaintiff claimed that she is the rightful owner of the works, which the Nazis forcibly purchased from her deceased husband's family during World War II. The court reversed and concluded that plaintiff's claims for replevin and conversion, as well as the remedies she seeks, do not conflict with federal policy because the Cranachs were never subject to postwar internal restitution proceedings in the Netherlands. Allowing plaintiff's claim to go forward would not disturb the finality of any internal restitution proceedings - appropriate or not - in the Netherlands. Nor is this dispute of the sort found to involve the international problems evident in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi. The court was mindful that the litigation of this case may implicate the act of state doctrine, though the court could not decide that issue definitively on the record. The court remanded for further development of this issue.
Court Description: Federal Policy Conflict. The panel reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of Marei Von Saher’s action claiming that she was the rightful owner of two panels painted by Lucas Cranach, Adam and Eve, which hang in Pasadena’s Norton Simon Museum of Art. Relying on California state law, Von Saher alleged that the Nazis forcibly purchased the panels from her deceased husband’s family in the Netherlands during World War II. The district court held that Von Saher’s specific claims and the remedies she sought conflicted with the United States’ express federal policy on recovered art, and the claims were barred by conflict preemption. The panel held that Von Saher’s claims did not conflict with any federal policy because the Cranachs were never subject to postwar internal restitution proceedings in the Netherlands. The panel held that Von Saher’s claims against the museum and the remedies she sought did not conflict with foreign policy, and the dispute was one between private parties. The panel remanded for further development on the issue of whether the case implicated the act of state doctrine. Dissenting, Judge Wardlaw would affirm the judgment of the district court because Von Saher’s state law claims would conflict with federal policy, which respects the finality of the Netherlands’ restitution proceedings.
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.