## Facts

- The dispute concerns Camille Pissarro’s 1897 painting *Rue Saint-Honoré, après-midi, effet de pluie*, originally purchased by Julius Cassirer and later owned by Fritz and Lilly Cassirer.
- In 1939, while fleeing Nazi persecution, Lilly Cassirer surrendered the painting to obtain an exit visa, receiving payment far below its value.
- The painting later moved through the art market, was acquired by Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, and was placed in a Spanish state-owned museum foundation’s collection in Madrid after Spain purchased the collection in 1993.
- In 2000, Claude Cassirer discovered the painting’s location, demanded its return, and was refused.
- In 2005, the Cassirer heirs sued in federal court in California; after a prior California Holocaust-era art statute was held unconstitutional, they amended to rely on a newer California limitations statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(c)(3).
- The district court dismissed, holding § 338(c)(3) unconstitutional under foreign-affairs field preemption and finding the claims time-barred under the preexisting three-year period in § 338(c).

## Issues

1. Whether Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(c)(3) is facially preempted by the federal government’s foreign-affairs power.
2. Whether § 338(c)(3) is preempted as applied due to conflict or obstacle preemption with federal statutes, executive policy, or diplomatic objectives.
3. If § 338(c)(3) is invalid, whether the claims are untimely under the otherwise applicable three-year limitations period in § 338(c).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held § 338(c)(3) is not facially preempted by the federal foreign-affairs power.
- The court held the defendant did not establish conflict or obstacle preemption at the pleadings stage.
- The court held the district court erred by dismissing as time-barred under the shorter three-year period without evaluating timeliness under § 338(c)(3)’s six-year discovery-based rule.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including factual development relevant to discovery and timeliness.

## Legal Principles

- A state law is preempted on foreign-affairs field preemption grounds only when it intrudes into the constitutionally assigned federal domain with more than incidental or indirect foreign effects.
- A generally applicable state statute governing property claims and limitations periods is less likely to be field-preempted than a statute that targets a particular international historical wrong or sets a distinct state foreign policy.
- Conflict or obstacle preemption requires a showing that the state law conflicts with a specific federal policy or materially impedes federal objectives; that showing may fail at the motion-to-dismiss stage absent a developed record.
- The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act governs jurisdiction and immunity and does not, by itself, establish a federal limitations rule that displaces state limitation periods for state-law property claims.
- Under § 338(c)(3), timeliness may turn on when the claimant actually discovered both the artwork’s location and sufficient facts indicating a possessory claim; such determinations can be fact-dependent.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that California’s § 338(c)(3) was not preempted by federal foreign-affairs authority on its face and was not shown to be conflict- or obstacle-preempted at the pleading stage, requiring remand to assess timeliness under the statute’s six-year, discovery-based limitations period rather than the preexisting three-year rule.


Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 737 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2013)