Nope.
It’s like claiming they owned California a hundred years ago and want it back now after transactions.
Theft is not a transaction. Coerced sales post 1933, this I believe in 1939, aren't transaction. This case apparently centered on the publicity the painting garnered years ago, not the issue of it's acquisiton by the Nazis, which is not in doubt, nor it's status from 1939 to 1963 wich is unknown. Don't know about California, but in the East and Midwest litigation over century old title and treaties aren't uncommon at all. Laws are laws, but Liz should be ashamed.
California was taken by treaty as I recall. How does that compare to the property of Jews in Europe. I don’t care how many transactions their were, unless you can show the family didn’t care at those times.