Petitioners, V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 20- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DAVID CASSIRER, et al., Petitioners, v. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION FOUNDATION, an AGency or instrumentality of the KinGdom of SPain Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF AppEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRcuIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI STEPHEN N. ZACK DAVid BOIES ANDREW S. BRENNER Counsel of Record ROSSANA BAEZA BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800 Armonk, NY 10504 Miami, FL 33131 (914) 749 8200 (305) 539-8400 [email protected] SAMUEL J. DUbbiN, P.A. DAVid A. BARRETT DUbbiN & KRAVETZ, LLP BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1200 Anastasia Avenue, Suite 300 55 Hudson Yards Coral Gables, FL 33134 New York, NY 10001 (305) 371-4700 (212) 446-2300 LAURA W. BRILL NICHOLAS DAUM KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 556-2700 Counsel for Petitioners 304280 QUESTION PRESENTED The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1611 (“FSIA”), provides that where a foreign nation is not immune from jurisdiction in the courts of the United States or of any State, it “shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” Id. § 1606. In four circuits, the courts of appeals have held that this statutory requirement of parity with private litigation means that a federal court hearing an FSIA case must apply the choice-of-law rules of the State in which it is sitting. But the Ninth Circuit has held—repeatedly and without meaningful analysis, including in the decision below—that choice of law in FSIA cases is determined by application of federal common law. The choice of law issue is critical in this case, in which the family of a Holocaust survivor seeks the return of a painting stolen by the Nazis. Under California law, a holder of stolen property (such as the Spanish state museum here) can never acquire good title, while under Spanish law, an adverse possession rule protects the museum’s title. The question presented is: Whether a federal court hearing state law claims brought under the FSIA must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs the claims at issue, or whether it may apply federal common law. i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners, all of whom were plaintiffs in the district court and appellants in the court of appeals, are David Cassirer, the Estate of Ava Cassirer, and the Jewish Federation of San Diego County. Respondent is the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, an agency or instrumentality of the Kingdom of Spain (“TBC”), which was the defendant in the district court and appellee in the court of appeals. ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT United Jewish Federation of San Diego is a nonprofit corporation with no parent corporation and no stock. iii RELATED PROCEEDINGS Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, et al., Nos. 06-56325, 06-56406, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered September 8, 2009. En banc judgment entered August 12, 2010. (“Cassirer I”) Kingdom of Spain, et al. v. Estate of Claude Cassirer, No. 10-786, U.S. Supreme Court. Petition for writ of certiorari denied June 27, 2011. Cassirer, et al., v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, No. 12-56159, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered Dec. 9, 2013. Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied February 11, 2014. (“Cassirer II”) Cassirer, et al., v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, Nos. 15-55550, 15- 55951, 15-55977, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered July 10, 2017. Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied December 5, 2017. (“Cassirer III”) Cassirer, et al., v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, No. 17-1245, U.S. Supreme Court. Petition for writ of certiorari denied May 14, 2018. Cassirer, et al., v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 05-cv-3549, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judgment entered May 17, 2019. Cassirer, et al., v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, No.19-55616, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered August 17, 2020. Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied December 7, 2020. (“Cassirer IV”) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................................................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ......................................................................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....................................................... iii RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................... iv TABLE OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................... vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii OPINIONS BELOW .................................................................................................. 1 JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................... 1 RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS ............................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 4 A. Respondents’ Unsuccessful Procedural Defenses ................................. 5 B. Choice-of-Law and Substantive Rulings Below ................................... 7 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....................................................... 9 I. THIS COURT SHOULD RESOLVE THE ENTRENCHED CIRCUIT SPLIT ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF FEDERAL STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, NAMELY WHETHER THE FSIA REQUIRES APPLICATION OF STATE LAW OR FEDERAL COMMON LAW TO DETERMINE CHOICE-OF-LAW ....................................................... 9 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 23 v TABLE OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A – OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, FILED AUGUST 17, 2020 APPENDIX B – OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FILED APRIL 30, 2019 APPENDIX C – OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, DATED JULY 10, 2017 APPENDIX D – OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FILED JUNE 4, 2015 APPENDIX E – DENIAL OF REHEARING OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, FILED DECEMBER 7, 2020 APPENDIX F – RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS – FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1605, 1606 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases: Bakalian v. Central Bank of Republic of Turkey, 932 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................... 9 Bank of New York v. Yugoimport, 745 F.3d 599 (2d Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 10, 13 Barkanic v. General Admin. of Civil Aviation of the People’s Republic of China, 923 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1991) .............................................................. 10, 13, 14, 15 Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvart-Maatschappij, 210 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1954) .................................................................................21 Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 616 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................5, 6 Cassirer v.Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 153 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................... 1, 7, 20 Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 737 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 6 Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, 824 F. App’x 452 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................... 1, 9, 22 Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, 862 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... passim Chuidian v. Philippine Nat. Bank, 976 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1992) ...............................................................................10 Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786 (2d Cir. 1980) .................................................................................12 Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Byrne & McDonnell, 178 Cal. 329 (1918) .............................................................................................18 Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. __ (2021) ................................................................................................. 6 vii First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) .............................................................................................13 Griffin v. McCoach, 313 U.S. 498 (1941) ...................................................................................... 18, 22 ABF Cap. Corp. v. Grove Properties Co., 126 Cal. App. 4th 204 (2005) ..............................................................................14 Harris v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze, 820 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................... 11, 12 Kasel v. Remington