limitations sickly section two four nine six my client took the position that it was not and in this on this issue the facts really aren't disputed it's just really the interpretation of foreign  that the other side says no and that's not true that's that's hardly has been a case to really let me just finish with it so twenty fourteen is hardly disputed i recall he submitted a declaration saying i don't know what you're talking about basically the don't think this is a question of law i think there's a lot of disputed facts that feed into that question so tell me why you think this is i know short on the i talking you you're right you are there are disputed facts but i'm talking in regards to the facts regarding the tolling tolling interruption of the well that's what you're jumping the gun the first thing you have to discuss is when to the cause of action a crew that's the first question for limitations so when do the cause of action a crew and where did it  and we acted on that the moving when found out were the whereabouts of the painting we believed it was in florence italy when did your client get that knowledge about the painting being in florence  painting disappeared at the time of her divorce from gori when they became separated divorced and then become final took two thousand and thirteen ok so when they were separated allegedly the painting disappeared will way back to one thousand nine hundred ninety two thousand she claims he took that when the movers came he then claims in the divorce proceedings she has it but certainly by two thousand and six the divorce decree says you don't get it through the divorce decree he then at some point tries to file a criminal action against her and the court says no you're out of luck time wise on the criminal action that he ever file a civil petition for return of property in in in the blow and our position was defended completely ignores the in this is in our or opposition to find it completely ignores the fact that under italian law the statute has been told and set i argue that you look to tell california law to determine the date of a cruel and only three three eight that's when you in the whereabouts of one three three eight says you look at three six one if you're talking about a cause that arises in a foreign country and yours clearly did so three three eight come may come later but it doesn't come first serve three six one starts off with if a claim is time barred overseas so you got to answer that conditional is this claim time barred the first  if the pain that he took it we want it back does that make sense does that seem like the right outcome to you know because i think like the legislator legislature stated in connection with three three eight and a lot of other courts of state market they're not easily discoverable it's hard to get knowledge of the whereabouts the usually well meaning private collections that's why you have all these rules in the statute that doesn't focus on california doesn't focus on suspecting who took it but it focuses on the whereabouts of were you know of where the pin is actually located because you run into situations that you're forced to file lawsuits you know so it's a little disingenuous to stand here and say well we couldn't a filed anything until we know exactly where it was in the as i read the papers and you i'd certainly want you to correct me because you've been at this a lot longer than i have looking at these but in the divorce proceeding is sought the paintings return correct and say you i mean the owner of the painting they sought their return and  complaint that she had it correct correct and then that was dismissed because of the statute of limitations on the wall while the person first reason was because under under telling criminal law you can't sue your wife for that one right and they were still technical right so he couldn't do that but he did institute a criminal proceeding against her because he thought she had the painting right you're stronger in all and so now you're coming here and saying well all of that wasn't enough that he thought she had as an expert in italian law he didn't punch you didn't get any raw materials to work with under five hundred four point one he pointed the this is a pure question of law you are surely not taking the big vission that a district court invariably has an obligation under forty four point one to do his or her own independent assessment when a party has failed to provide any admissible materials on the point of you or are you taking that position  this wasn't the case we argued that it was suspended and told i know you argue that the district with the judge and let me let me finish my question i know you argue that in the district judge said no you didn't and you did not provide me with any usable material on that point and here are three reasons why i know you argue that nobody's saying you didn't have to disregard said your arguments aren't holding water because they're not based on anything i can take a look at so in effect you gave him nothing to work out and when i hear you saying is oh this circuit has ordered district court judges to to pick up and resolve italian law questions when counsel has failed to provide any information about it they can't be right your honor first thing we argue suspension ruction i argue that brief whether that is not an eviden it's a question of law it's not a question of fact questionable it's says it can be decided as a question but how and when you get the foundation for that question of law is not laid out in the print and i think when you have the district judge made the judgment here with what he had and what was available to him as to suspension so he may be right he may be wrong but he made he made ultimately a judgment in that in what was presented as i recall were and i evolved to try to present some material on appeal but was basically related to a creditor situation there was no nothing was even offered up that says in statute limitations context we have tolling and it was only then on appeal that you came up with the notion that this recovery action has no statute of limitations because everybody in the district court was operating on the ten year statute of limitations when you agree that that was basically the what the briefs were arguing about ten years and whether it was told in the court below that was in trust the argument yes you precedent that holds that i can flesh out that issue on appeal so now let me let me ask you this if you just run a hypothetical with me what if we were to say under the california borrowing statute  figure it out yes your honor and that's the intellectually honest approach i took i don't think so so now i'm just gonna run this through so if you then move to california law and you look at a cruel under california law and you believe that she has the painting correct we believe that mazhar has the painting the location that's where the whereabouts of the painting as well who are you suing so her because he got it somehow you know that your position but the other side is is absolutely not this is not true so how the district court result that short of a trial i think with the i think the issue of ownership expert admitted that under italian law you have to do a public filing for an item of this value to claim that it's a gift and she never did that and in fact that's my point that there's every turn there's a disputed issue of fact i just don't understand how you can even say this claim accrued i think this is an argument that would be appealing to you i can't i don't even see how anybody could say this claim has accrued when all of these facts are in dispute and when you never up when you will never live to get a cruel under italian law i just again because this is i think you know i've spent a lot of time researching this issue looking at supreme court precedent looking at this court's precedent the issue of whether suspension interruption was before the court and it's a purely legal issue do in the lower court we do not i mean you know this is what's very frustrating about the case is coming here asking us to reverse to district court and it's like a moving target i mean you may think that painting is a moving target but i think the statute of limitations is a moving target in the litigation because now you say you do have that statute i mean i'll just you know the morning honors please court scott humphries for that we defended vic it was the painting that's a great question my client at all times than i did she ever took the pain so why then has any limitations period accrued aren't you i mean aren't these facts ultimately not where you want them to be i mean i don't see how under either california or italian law in the absence of any know you think she has it and she says as you just agreed absolutely not to the fact that he thinks he has a does is typically not an accrual is certainly not in the discovery rule in california i don't know about italian law has you'll never litigated it in the district court personal property there is no analysis there is no discussion of who had what is just a one liner about personal property i found it to be a nonevent ok then if we look at the criminal court decision in two thousand and fourteen again he f criminal proceedings there was a prosecutor and intervened in that action and the civil criminal courts dismissed that case both acquitted but also found that the statute of limitations would bar the claim so as a criminal matter sure but that's not what we're talking about there so you can bring a criminal complaint i mean that's apples and oranges for the civil plan so my understanding of the california was is that if you look at our california a limited for limitation purposes well i don't have a tie in law on that for me so i can't answer from that's my point is question is still open this is to me of a question that nobody has resolved nobody knows whether the claim is actually cruden italy or not you just you gree you don't know either well not under italian law ok purposes of california law over this use and but you don't get to california under three sixty one through sixty one says if it's barred overseas i mean you have to should you have to look at the as far as a cruel goes that's governed by california law to be governed by three three eight c two and let me just jump in there looking at three sixty one three sixty one says when a cause of action has arisen in a foreign country and by the laws there cannot be maintained by reason of the lapse of time first question is what happened in italy that a cause of action accrue under tie in law and didn't lapse under talian law that's the first question and seems to me this is an unanswered question by anybody district court you all and there's nothing in the record that answers the question why why why isn't it my only sending this back for that key question to be answered everything turns off of that line did this lapse in italy why not why don't we just sending it back for the actual finding which by the way i just seems to me as a trial but that's a different issue but anyway go ahead so why don't we just sending it back a criminal complaint which certainly requires a certainty but i'm sorry i just i don't understand how any of that says this is the whereabouts of that pain i mean yes a husband in a divorce fight said my wife stole this but that's that's that's neither here nor there in terms of fact that's just his supposition i mean what does that say about the whereabouts of the paint when you look at our cases people actually know where the paintings are why i've read and so so what you have here is my client who's been sued over the again i'm someone to broken record i apologise what are these over the trier of fact to work out this is a he said she said they said other people said i mean this is just one story after another that somebody has to sort out as a matter of  to the question of whether or not she stole it absolutely there's no basis for summary judgment but as to the running of the statute of limitations and spew to the glory claimed that she had taken it that he took legal action against her and our position and i understand what you're saying about time laws under california law the claim accrued at the time that corey had sent a demand letter subsequently filed suit proceeding against her in criminal court obligation to hear in on a crude claim you just dismiss it and you say come back and limitations periods not going to even start until the claim accrues you sue too early and you're not going to come back again and again and again you come back when the painting surfaces mohit i think the difference is that well there's different causes of action there's a replevin which is give me the thing back wherever in god's earth it may be in a basement on a wall and then there's the conversion that she did something to it and she's responsible for transfer and that's a different question than give me the painting back so it may be that the replevin action can be put out into you know outer space for a while well the painting floats around but i would assume they would object to dismissal of the conversion action or conduct on her part that may to change the status i don't know what your answer is to that on the statute limitations my answer would be that we're looking at the conversion action it's not for real it's not for x tangible problem so the whereabouts of painting are not necessary to cause that action to prove right you cruise mean glory hughes's for it and proceeds criminally and civil the italian courts that he believe that she converted it therefore that was some time some years ago beyond any three year statute of limitations people sue other people all the time aist on their suspicion recently held that someone has done some act which is or i can't imagine a conversion claim ever being resolved in summary judgment i mean it would be a rare day that the case would be so one lopsided that the fact disputes would fall away and you could decide conversion on summary judgment starting in two thousand and the only statement about tolling was in the giovanni nappie declaration which the district court found was completely unhelpful didn't depend for instance statutes translated into english that the court could look at or provide any other basis so you have in the record that there's a ten year statute stations it runs from the time that gauri could exercise a right he did in fact exercise  the statute would be suspended or told under italian law why shouldn't we let the district court figure that out and by the way if you look at that time in declaration you have what is a persistent problem in this case which is appended there's ten thousand pieces of so called authority but they're all in its own right they're not translated there's no way i mean this is no way to run a railroad in a foreign case that that's correct should give untranslated documents to the court because if we can we can you know they can handle that even if we speak italian i can read them when where not supposed to be you claim would accrue upon learning the whereabouts of the pain the dispute hears the whereabouts now where are they where is the painting we might not know their great cause is not accrued under california law and you know the the it accrued when the last known person with gori said that his wife had converted it from the mare on which was the last known place that it was that's when that claim would have a true because at that point gori had said that he knew the whereabouts of the painting but she denies that what why are we just trusting gauri why is he the be on end on this fact issue she says no that's absolutely wrong she gets an equal say so you try or fact to work it out you know we don't dismissed because there is no knowledge of whereabouts so it would be improper kaisa couldn't even be here all because they've conceded they don't know the whereabouts either or that it's with mr bizarro which means they don't have a claim for recovery against  disputes that mr zorra disputes that but that was gene g s position the california case it really deals with the issue which i believe is right on point society california pioneers for says baker that it's the whereabouts where he believes the pain is located they keep on pointing to he suspected she took it that is not sufficient and that is clearly the case under california pioneers and a lot of other jurisdictions that talk about the discovery of the whereabouts of the painting in the sight of situation and also your honour's  even today in the briefs here they have not argued that the what i set forth in in my briefs that the doctrines of suspension interruption and that recovery actions are not subject to statute limitations