David Cassirer, et al. v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation

In 2022, the Court in this case held that in an action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal court must apply the forum state’s choice-oflaw rules, rather than “federal common law,” to determine the applicable substantive law. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Spanish substantive law applied. Cassirer v. ThyssenBornemisza Collection Found., 596 U.S. 107 (2022). Choice-of-law is dispositive here, where the family of a Holocaust survivor sued in California district court to recover a painting stolen by the Nazis and now held by a Spanish state museum. Under California substantive law, a thief can never convey good title and the true owner cannot lose title without actual knowledge of the work’s location. Under Spanish law, the holder of stolen property can acquire title by three years of adverse possession, regardless of the owner’s knowledge. On remand from this Court, the Ninth Circuit, purporting to apply California’s common law choiceof-law test, again held that Spanish law applied. Following denial of rehearing en banc, the California Legislature unanimously enacted a statute which mandates that “California substantive law shall apply” in pending and future cases brought by California residents to recover stolen artworks in the possession of a museum or covered by the Federal Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act. Question 1: With California’s enactment of a statutory choice-of-law requirement that precludes