Top

Published in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

6. Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art

Author : Bruce L. Hay

Published in: Nazi-Looted Art and the Law

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, the heirs of Jacques Goudstikker sueds to recover a Cranach diptych taken from his Amsterdam gallery by Hermann Göring, which eventually made its way to the Norton Simon Museum in California. This chapter examines the adjudication of the case, which has confronted the courts with a series of problems in constitutional law, conflicts of law, and foreign property law.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Orkin v. Taylor

next chapter Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain and Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation

On the Goudstikker family, see Müller and Tatzkow (2010), pp. 216–232, and Sutton (2008).

These events are detailed in Gennochio (2008), Riding (2006a, b), and Rickman (2007). The journalist’s investigative work appears in den Hollander (1998). The Dutch Restitution Committee report leading to the return of the artwork is contained in Restitutiecommissie (2005).

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 2007 WL 4302726 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). The court of appeals reasoned that, depending on when it had accrued, von Saher’s claim might satisfy the original three-year statute of limitations, even though the legislature’s extension of the limitation period was invalid. In remanding, the court of appeals instructed the district court to consider that possibility (We will refer to the 2010 appeals court decision as “Von Saher I”).

Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, No. CV 07-2866-JFW (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015). The court reasoned that the 2007 claims were timely because they had accrued in 2000, when von Saher learned of the artwork’s whereabouts, and the museum had agreed in 2003 to toll any further running of the statute of limitations.

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 862 F. Supp.2d 1044 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 754 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1158 (2015). We will refer to the 2014 appeals court decision as “Von Saher II.”

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, No. 07-cv-2866 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016).

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 354.5 (insurance claims), § 354.6 (slave labor claims). Both provisions extended the statute of limitations until 2010. Like other California legislation from the period that singled out Holocaust-related claims, the enactments were struck down by the courts as infringing the federal government’s authority over foreign affairs. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003) (invalidating § 354.6); Steinberg v. International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 944 (App.Div. 2005) (invalidating § 354.5).

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 354.3. On statutes of limitations in Nazi-looted art litigation, see Kreder (2012) and Demarsin (2010).

2002 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 332 (A.B.1758).

Id.

Id. The statute was inapplicable in Orkin v. Taylor, discussed in the previous chapter, because that case did not involve a claim against a museum or gallery.

For overviews and analyses of the doctrine, see Henkin (1996) and Schaefer (2011).

539 U.S. 396 (2003).

324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 820 (2003).

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 402–3.

See generally Bazyler (2005), Eizenstat (2003), Hennig (2007), and Kill and Gerstel (2007).

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 405–6.

Id. at 406 (quoting agreement).

Id. (quoting agreement).

The agreements did not have the status of formal treaties and were not submitted to the Senate for ratification as such.

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 408.

Id. at 410 (quoting statute and legislative committee report).

Quoted in id.

Id. at 411.

Id. at 413.

Id.

Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434, 449 (1979), quoted in Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 414.

The Federalist No. 80 (Alexander Hamilton), in Cooke (1961), pp. 535–36, quoted in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 381–82 n. 16 (2000), in turn quoted in Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 414 (brackets omitted).

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610–11 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), quoted in Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 414.

Id. at 415.

Id. at 417.

Id. at 416.

Id. at 417.

389 U.S. 429 (1968).

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 417.

Zschernig, 389 U.S. at 440–41.

Id.

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 418 (describing Zschernig ruling).

Id. at 420.

Id. at 420–21 (quoting United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 225 (1942)).

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 421.

Id. at 422 (quoting State Department).

Id. at 422–23 (quoting executive agreement with Germany).

Id. at 423.

Id. at 423–24 (quoting Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 377 (2000). Here the Court drew a comparison to a Massachusetts statute that indirectly imposed economic sanctions on Burma, in a manner at variance with the policy toward that country pursued by the federal government; that statute was struck down in the Crosby case.

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 425 (quoting Crosby, 530 U.S. at 379, 380).

Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 426.

Id. at 426–27.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 354.6.

Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 708 (9th Cir. 2003).

Id. (quoting Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 441 (1968) (brackets omitted)).

389 U.S. 429 (1968).

Id. at 432, quoted in Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 710.

Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 711.

Id.

Id. (quoting Zschernig, 389 U.S. at 441 (internal quotation omitted)).

Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 712.

Id. (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 354.6).

Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 712.

Id. at 712–15. On the German compensation fund for slave laborers established in 2000, see Kent (2007), Lambsdorff (2007), and Sturman (2007).

Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 715 (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 354.6).

Id. at 715.

Id.

Id. at 716.

For explanation of the two categories, see Chiang (2003) and Spiro (1999), along with the sources in note 14 above.

Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation and Control (January 5, 1943), quoted in Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 592 F.3d 954, 962 (9th Cir. 2010).

Report on Art Objects in U.S. Zone (July 29, 1945), quoted in Von Saher I, 592 F.3d at 962.

Von Saher I, 592 F.3d at 963.

Id. at 964.

Id. (quoting Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 426).

Von Saher I, 592 F.3d at 965.

Id.

Id. at 966 (quoting Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 712).

Von Saher I, 592 F.3d at 967.

Id.

Id. at 968.

Id. For criticism of the court’s ruling, see Conway (2010) and Demarsin (2010). A similar California law extending the statute of limitations for insurance claims of Armenian genocide victims was struck down in Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 670 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012)(en banc).

2010 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 691 (A.B. 2765), codified at Cal. Code Civ Proc. § 338(c)(3). On the 2010 legislation, see Shah (2017).

Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, No. CV 07-2866-JFW (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015). As previously noted, the amended statute allowed an art restitution lawsuit against a museum or gallery to be brought within six years of the plaintiff’s actual discovery of the facts supporting her claim. The district court concluded that von Saher had met this deadline.

Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, No. 09-1254 (U.S. May 27, 2011).

Von Saher II, 754 F.3d at 720 (quoting brief).

U.S. Dept. of State, The Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets, Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (Dec. 3, 1998), quoted in Von Saher II, 754 F.3d at 721.

Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference, Terezín Declaration (June 30, 2009), quoted in Von Saher II, 754 F.3d at 721.

Von Saher, 862 F. Supp.2d at 1052.

Von Saher II, 754 F.3d at 721.

Id. at 722 (quoting Desirée von Saher).

Id.

Id. at 723. The court acknowledged that the Dutch government’s transfer of the painting in 1966 might constitute an “act of state” immune to judicial challenge, but concluded that the record in the case was insufficiently developed to decide the question at that stage of the litigation. Id. at 725–26.

Id. at 723.

Id.

Id. at 724.

Id. at 723.

Id.

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, No. CV 07-2866-JFW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016), at 10 n. 5.

Id. at 3.

100

Quoted in id. at 4.

101

Id.

102

Id. at 11 n. 6 (quoting Royal Decree E100).

103

Von Saher did obtain restitution of other property, including her residence and the Goudstikker gallery space, that had been taken in a forced sale to Göring’s associate Aloïs Riedl.

104

Id. at 15.

105

Id. at 17 (quoting Dutch authorities).

106

Id.

107

Id.

Bazyler, Michael J. 2005. Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts. New York: New York University Press.

Chiang, Emily. 2003. Think Locally, Act Globally? Dormant Federal Common Law Preemption of State and Local Activities Affecting Foreign Affairs. Syracuse Law Review 53: 923–994.

Conway, Mikka Gee. 2010. Foreign Affairs Preemption and von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum: Complicating the “Just and Fair Solution” to Holocaust-Era Art Claims. Law & Inequality 28: 373–406.

Cooke, Jacob E., ed. 1961. The Federalist. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Demarsin, Bert. 2010. The Third Time Is Not Always a Charm: The Troublesome Legacy of a Dutch Art Dealer. Cardozo Journal of Arts and Entertainment Law 28: 255–316.

den Hollander, Pieter. 1998. De Zaak Houdstikker. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.

Eizenstat, Stuart. 2003. Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II. New York: Public Affairs Press.

Gennochio, Benjamin. 2008. Seized, Reclaimed, and now on View. New York Times, April 27.

Henkin, Louis. 1996. Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Hennig, Kai. 2007. The Road to Compensation of Life Insurance Policies: The Foundation Law and ICHEIC. In Holocaust Restitution: The Litigation and Its Legacy, ed. Michael J. Bazyler and Roger P. Alford, 251–259. New York: New York University Press.

Kent, Roman. 2007. It’s Not About the Money: A Survivor’s Perspective on the German Foundation Initiative. In Holocaust Restitution: The Litigation and Its Legacy, ed. Michael J. Bazyler and Roger P. Alford, 205–214. New York: New York University Press.

Kill, Lawrence, and Linda Gerstel. 2007. Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Remedies. In Holocaust Restitution: The Litigation and Its Legacy, ed. Michael J. Bazyler and Roger P. Alford, 239–251. New York: New York University Press.

Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2012. Fighting Corruption of the Historical Record: Nazi-Looted Art Litigation. Kansas Law Review 61: 75–137.

Lambsdorff, Otto Graf. 2007. The Negotiations on Compensation for Nazi Forced Laborers. In Holocaust Restitution: The Litigation and Its Legacy, ed. Michael J. Bazyler and Roger P. Alford, 170–181. New York: New York University Press.

Müller, Melissa, and Monika Tatzkow. 2010. Lost Lives, Lost Art: Jewish Collectors, Nazi Art Theft. London: Frontline.

Restitutiecommissie. 2005. Recommendation Regarding Application by Amsterdamse Negotiatie Compagnie NV in Liquidation for the Restitution of 267 Works of Art From the Dutch National Art Collection. Accessed July 1, 2017. http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/recommendations/recommendation_115.html.

Rickman, Gregg J. 2007. Conquest and Redemption: A History of Jewish Assets from the Holocaust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Riding, Alan. 2006a. Dutch to Return Art Seized by Nazis. New York Times, February 7.

———. 2006b. Göring, Rembrandt, and the Little Black Book. New York Times, March 26.

Schaefer, Matthew. 2011. Constraints on State-Level Foreign Policy: (Re)justifying, Refining and Distinguishing the Dormant Foreign Affairs Doctrine. Seton Hall Law Review 41: 201–318.

Shah, Rajika L. 2017. The Making of California’s Art Recovery Statute: The Long Road to Section 338(c)(3). Chapman Law Review 20: 77–118.

Spiro, Peter J. 1999. Foreign Relations Federalism. University of Colorado Law Review 70: 1223–1277.

Sturman, Deborah. 2007. Germany’s Reexamination of Its Past Through the Lens of the Holocaust Litigation. In Holocaust Restitution: The Litigation and Its Legacy, ed. Michael J. Bazyler and Roger P. Alford, 215–225. New York: New York University Press.

Sutton, Peter C. 2008. Reclaimed: Paintings from the Collection of Jacques Goudstikker. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003)

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000)

Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 820 (2003)

Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 (1979)

Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 670 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012)(en banc)

United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 225 (1942)

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 2007 WL 4302726 (C.D. Cal. 2007), aff’d in part and rev’d part, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011), on remand, 862 F. Supp.2d 1044 (C.D. Cal. 2012), rev’d, 754 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1158 (2015), on further remand, Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, No. 07-cv-2866 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (unpublished), and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, No. 07-cv-2866 (Aug. 9, 2016) (unpublished), appeal docketed, No. 16-56308 (9th Cir. Sep. 9, 2016)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968)

Title: Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art
Author: Bruce L. Hay
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Nazi-Looted Art and the Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64966-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-64967-2

Copyright Year: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64967-2_6