On January 20, 2017, Zuckerman opposed the Metropolitan Museums's motion to dismiss her case with a memorandum that spotlighted the effect of the HEAR Act, also arguing that the law mooted the argument as filed. Her brief stated:
Here, there is no question that: (a) the Complaint alleges that the Leffmanns lost the Painting in 1938 because of the persecution by the Nazis and their Fascist allies (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9, 26-28, 42, 47); and (b) Plaintiff’s claim was pending as of the date of the Act’s enactment. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the HEAR Act, Plaintiff’s claims are timely and the Museum is barred from raising the state statute of limitations to avoid resolution on the merits.
The Metropolitan's reply, filed on February 27, contested that the HEAR Act applied at all. Specifically, "The HEAR Act’s purpose is thus to revive certain claims for artworks “confiscated,” “stolen,” or“misappropriated” by the Nazis. This is not such a case."
To read the reply, click here.