## Facts

- Jacques Goudstikker, a Dutch Jewish art dealer, owned a large pre–World War II art collection that included two Lucas Cranach the Elder paintings, *Adam* and *Eve*.
- In 1940, during the Nazi invasion of the Netherlands, Goudstikker fled; his collection was transferred through a Nazi-forced sale.
- After the war, Allied forces returned Nazi-looted artworks to the Netherlands; the Dutch government took possession of the Cranach paintings as part of postwar restitution administration.
- In 1966, the Dutch government sold the paintings to George Stroganoff-Scherbatoff, who sold them to the Norton Simon Museum in 1971; the Museum displayed them.
- Marei von Saher, Goudstikker’s widow and sole heir, sought restitution in the Netherlands; Dutch proceedings ultimately rejected her request concerning the paintings.
- Von Saher sued the Museum in federal court in California for recovery of the paintings; after earlier litigation over a different California Holocaust-era statute, California enacted Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(3), extending limitations for certain fine-art recovery claims using a discovery rule.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint, holding § 338(c)(3) was preempted by the federal foreign affairs power and that the claims were time-barred.

## Issues

1. Whether Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(3), extending limitations for certain Holocaust-era fine-art recovery actions, is preempted by the federal foreign affairs power.
2. Whether § 338(c)(3) is conflict- or field-preempted by any federal policy favoring resolution of war-related claims through diplomacy or executive agreements.
3. Whether, assuming § 338(c)(3) is valid, von Saher’s claims can be dismissed as untimely at the pleading stage under the statute’s discovery-based rule.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal in relevant part and remanded.
- The court held § 338(c)(3) was not preempted by the federal foreign affairs power.
- The court rejected conflict and field preemption arguments, concluding no specific federal enactment or executive agreement barred or occupied this category of private restitution litigation.
- The court held timeliness could not be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss because the discovery-rule inquiry was fact-dependent.

## Legal Principles

- State laws in traditional areas of state authority (including property remedies and statutes of limitations) are not foreign affairs preempted absent a clear conflict with federal policy or an impermissible state intrusion that effectively sets foreign policy.
- A statute of limitations extension drafted as a generally applicable civil limitations rule, without directing courts to pass judgment on foreign sovereign conduct or singling out particular foreign actors, is less likely to be treated as an intrusion into exclusive federal foreign affairs powers.
- Foreign affairs conflict preemption requires a demonstrated inconsistency with specific federal policies, statutes, or executive agreements; generalized federal interests in diplomacy are insufficient.
- Where a limitations statute incorporates a discovery rule tied to discovery of the artwork’s location/identity and the claimant’s interest, dismissal on limitations grounds is improper if the complaint does not conclusively establish untimeliness.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held California’s § 338(c)(3) was a permissible, generally applicable limitations rule not preempted by federal foreign affairs power, and it allowed the heirs’ restitution claims to proceed past the pleading stage because timeliness under the discovery rule required further factual development.


Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 754 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2014)