Judge Graber feels strongly about this oneJudge Graber feels strongly about this one.
The case involves an otherwise arcane doctrinal dispute about whether California or Spanish law should apply to the dispute. But it's a high-profile fight about who should get to keep a Pissarro painting stolen by the Nazis; the Spanish museum that currently holds it or the sole living descendant of its original Jewish owner from whom it was stolen.
The painting is worth $60 million, by the way.
After a plethora of procedural fights, the Ninth Circuit decided that Spanish law applied, which meant that the lawsuit here was barred by the statute of limitations, and hence the museum gets to keep the painting. Judge Graber disagrees with the decision not to take the case en banc, and explains her position in forceful terms.
As I count it, her statement regarding the refusal spans roughly twenty pages and contains over thirty different places in which the statement underlines certain words or phrases for emphasis. As is usual for these sorts of things, these emphases are increasingly prevalent and emphatic as the statement goes on. And that's all in addition to the adjective-filled descriptions of the positions with which Judge Graber disagrees -- to take but one example, labelling the panel's prior opinion on one point as "myopic" as well as "illogical and without support in California law."
I get it. I, too, often get worked up when writing about issues about which I feel strongly. When writing briefs or articles, lots of my early drafts contain tons of italics and emphases.
Though, as the drafts progress, I typically try to tone the thing down for the final version.
Regardless, Judge Graber authors a strong statement about why she thinks this case should be taken en banc. Only Judge Paez joins her statement, so it doesn't look like it was a very close vote.
But Judge Graber nonetheless wants to make sure you know how she feels in this one.
