Movsesian

Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG

Good Law
629 F.3d 901·2010 WL 5028828·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25225
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 2010No. 07-56722California4,664 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pregerson, J.

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge THOMPSON.

ORDER

Judge Pregerson and Judge Nelson vote to grant the petition for rehearing and Judge Thompson votes to deny the petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is GRANTED.

The opinion and dissent filed on August 20, 2009, are hereby withdrawn. The opinion and dissent attached to this order are hereby filed.

New petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc may be filed.

OPINION

Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure extends the statute of limitations until 2010 for claims arising out of life insurance policies issued to “Armenian Genocide vietim[s].” Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 354.4(c) (West 2006). The primary issue in this appeal is whether § 354.4 conflicts with a clear, express federal executive policy. We conclude that there is no express federal policy forbidding states to use the term “Armenian Genocide,” and we affirm the district court.

I. Background

In 2000, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1915, which amended California’s Code of Civil Procedure 1 to provide California courts with jurisdiction over certain classes of claims arising out of insurance policies held by “Armenian…

Dissenting Opinion

Thompson, J.

dissenting:

Contrary to the majority’s view, I would hold that a clear Presidential foreign policy exists in this case against officially recognizing the “Armenian Genocide.” Over the past decade, three separate House Resolutions have attempted to formally recognize the “Armenian Genocide.” See H.R. Res. 596, 106th Cong. (2000); H.R. Res. 193, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. Res. 106, 110th Cong. (2007). Each time, however, the Administrations of President Clinton and President Bush took specific actions, both publicly and privately, to oppose those Resolutions 1 and to urge that legislative action was not the preferred solution. 2 And each time, as a result, the Resolutions concerned were never brought to a vote on the floor.

Based on this undisputed evidence, which in my view is not undermined by the federal government’s occasional efforts to *910 commemorate these tragic and horrific events, I would conclude that there is an express foreign policy prohibiting legislative recognition of the “Armenian Genocide,” as pronounced by the Executive Branch and as acquiesced in by Congress. Accordingly, I dissent. I would find that California Code of Civil Procedure § 354.4 is preempted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.