Court Opinion

ID: 9912131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 18:00:46.76518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:19.138816
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
        FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SPENCER ELDEN,                             No. 22-55822

              Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                           2:21-cv-06836-
 v.                                          FMO-AGR

NIRVANA L.L.C.; UNIVERSAL
MUSIC GROUP, INC.; THE DAVID                 OPINION
GEFFEN COMPANY; GEFFEN
RECORDS; MCA RECORDS, INC.;
UMG RECORDINGS, INC.; KIRK
WEDDLE; COURTNEY LOVE, As
Executor of the Estate of Kurt Cobain;
KRIST NOVOSELIC; DAVID
GROHL,

              Defendants-Appellees.

       Appeal from the United States District Court
           for the Central District of California
      Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

         Argued and Submitted October 18, 2023
                   Phoenix, Arizona

                 Filed December 21, 2023
2                     ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

    Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, Bridget S. Bade, and Daniel A.
                    Bress, Circuit Judges.

                     Opinion by Judge Ikuta

                          SUMMARY *

              Civil Suit Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255

    The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a civil
suit brought by Spencer Elden under 18 U.S.C. § 2255
(2018) and remanded.
    Elden sought personal injury damages on the ground that
he was a victim of child pornography when, as a baby, he
was photographed naked in a pool for the cover of Nirvana’s
album Nevermind. The district court dismissed the action as
barred by the ten-year statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2255(b)(1) (2018).
    Reversing, the panel held that, because each
republication of child pornography may constitute a new
personal injury, Elden’s complaint alleging republication of
the album cover within the ten years preceding his action
was not barred by the statute of limitations.

*
  This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
                 ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.                3

                      COUNSEL

Robert Y. Lewis (argued), James R. Marsh, and Margaret E.
Mabie, Marsh Law Firm PLLC, New York, New York, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Bert H. Deixler (argued) and Nary Kim, Kendall Brill &
Kelly LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendants-
Appellees.
Marci A. Hamilton, CEO & Founder, CHILD USA,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jessica Schidlow, Staff
Attorney, CHILD USA, Monique D.M. St. Germain
Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Inc., Winnipeg,
Manitoba; Hillary Nappi, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie
LLP, New York, New York; Carol L. Hepburn, Carol L.
Hepburn P.S., Seattle, Washington; for Amicus Curiae
CHILD USA and Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Inc.
4                      ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

                              OPINION

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) a person who, while a
minor, was a victim of specified offenses, including child
pornography offenses, could bring a civil suit for damages
for personal injuries. 1 The suit must be brought within ten
years after the later of the violation or the injury “that forms
the basis for the claim.” Id. § 2255(b)(1). Spencer Elden
alleges that he was the victim of a child pornography offense
when (as a four-month-old baby) he was photographed
naked in a pool for the cover of Nirvana’s iconic album
Nevermind. Now an adult, Elden argues that the continued
use of this photo causes ongoing personal injuries. We hold
that, because each republication of child pornography may
constitute a new personal injury, Elden’s complaint alleging
republication of the album cover within the ten years
preceding his action is not barred by the statute of limitations
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2255(b)(1)(B) (2018).
                                    I
   In 1987, Kurt Cobain and Krist Novoselic formed the
grunge rock band “Nirvana.” In September 1991, the band
teamed up with a record label to produce what ultimately

1
  In 2022, Congress passed an amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)
that eliminated the statute of limitations for claims brought under § 2255.
See Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act of
2022, Pub L. 117-176, §§ 2–3, 136 Stat. 2108, 2108 (codified at 18
U.S.C. § 2255). The parties agree that the 2022 version of the statute
does not apply here. Accordingly, any citations to the statute in this
opinion are to the version in effect from February 14, 2018 to September
15, 2022. See 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018), amended by 18 U.S.C. § 2255
(2022).
                   ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.                  5

became the hit album Nevermind. Spencer Elden, who was
then four months old, was photographed in a pool for the
cover of Nevermind. The released album cover depicts a
naked baby, with his penis visible, floating underwater
toward a superimposed dollar bill on a fishhook.
    The album cover art has become iconic and highly
recognizable. It has been displayed in the Museum of
Modern Art in New York and has been frequently
referenced, imitated, and parodied. Commentators have
opined that the naked infant reaching for a dollar symbolizes
the ills of a capitalistic society.
     Within three months, Nevermind rose to the top of the
Billboard 200 ranking and was later certified as a platinum
record. Since the album’s initial release, the band and the
album’s producers have sold over 30 million copies of
Nevermind and continue to profit from the album’s
distribution. Separately from selling the album itself, the
band and the album’s producers have licensed the cover
image for various other merchandise, including Snapchat
filters, t-shirts, and posters.
    Elden turned 18 in 2009. On August 24, 2021, when
Elden was 30 years old, he filed this action against the band,
its members, and the recording companies (collectively
“Defendants”). After two rounds of amendments, Elden
filed his Second Amended Complaint on January 12, 2022.
    In his complaint, Elden asserted a single claim under 18
U.S.C. § 2255, which provides a civil cause of action to
victims of various child abuse violations. Subsection (a) of
the statute reads in relevant part:

       In general. —Any person who, while a
       minor, was a victim of a violation of [certain
6                    ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

        enumerated crimes, including 18 U.S.C.
        § 2252A] of this title and who suffers
        personal injury as a result of such violation,
        regardless of whether the injury occurred
        while such person was a minor, may sue in
        the appropriate United States District
        Court . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The complaint alleges that Defendants
violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a), which prohibits (among
other things) the knowing possession, access with intent to
view, mailing, transportation, shipment, distribution, receipt,
reproduction for the purpose of distribution, promotion,
presentation, and solicitation through the mails of child
pornography using the means or facility of interstate or
foreign commerce. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1), (2)(A),
(2)(B), (3)(A), (3)(B), (5)(B).          The term “child
pornography,” as used in § 2252A(a), includes any visual
depiction involving “the use of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8).
    The operative complaint alleges that the image of Elden
on the Nevermind cover is “child pornography.” 2 According
to the complaint, Elden was “extensively exploited by the
Defendants who have knowingly possessed, transported,
reproduced, advertised, promoted, presented, distributed,
provided, and obtained commercial child pornography
depicting [Elden]” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a). In
particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants have
reproduced and redistributed the image of Elden “[d]uring

2
 The question whether the Nevermind album cover meets the definition
of child pornography is not at issue in this appeal.
                       ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.                         7

the ten years preceding this action and since,” including in
their September 2021 re-release of the Nevermind album.
    Elden alleges that he “suffered personal injury as a result
of each Defendant’s ongoing violation” of § 2252A(a). He
alleges that “[f]or the ten years preceding this action and to
the present day, each Defendant caused, and continues to
cause, [him] serious injury including, without limitation,
physical, psychological, financial, and reputational
damages.” Elden seeks “to recover for injuries [he]
sustained during the ten years preceding the filing of this
action, and injuries he has sustained since then as a result of
Defendants’. . . past and ongoing commercial child sexual
exploitation of him . . . .”
    Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that
Elden’s claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations,
which provides that the limitations period for bringing a
claim runs ten years after the plaintiff reasonably discovered
the violation or the injury that forms the basis for the claim. 3

3
  Section 2255(b), which sets forth the statute of limitations period for
claims brought pursuant to § 2255(a), states:
    Statute of limitations. —Any action commenced under this
    section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed—
         (1) not later than [ten] years after the date on which the
         plaintiff reasonably discovers the later of—
              (A) the violation that forms the basis for the claim;
              or
              (B) the injury that forms the basis for the claim;
              or
         (2) not later than [ten] years after the date on which the
         victim reaches [eighteen] years of age.
18 U.S.C. § 2255(b).      The parties agree that § 2255(b)(2) is
inapplicable here.
8                     ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

    The district court concluded that Elden’s claim was time-
barred under § 2255(b) and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice. Elden timely appealed. We review de novo a
district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15 F.4th 885,
889 (9th Cir. 2021).
                                  II
                                  A
    In determining whether the statute of limitations bars
Elden’s claim, we begin with the text of the statute. As noted
above, § 2255(a), which provides the cause of action for
specified violations and personal injuries, includes two time
frames. First, the plaintiff must have been a minor when
victimized by the violation of a specified predicate offense,
here § 2252A(a). Second, the plaintiff must have suffered
“personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of
whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor.”
18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In other words, while the violation of
the criminal laws must have occurred while the plaintiff was
a minor, the personal injury could occur when the plaintiff
was an adult. 4
    The relevant portions of the statute of limitations section,
§ 2255(b), reflect these time frames. First, a plaintiff may

4
  This wording is the product of Congress’s amendment to § 2255 in
2006. The 2006 amendment, known as “Masha’s Law,” is part of the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Pub. L. No. 109–
248, § 707, 120 Stat. 587, 650 (2006). Masha’s Law added the phrase
“while a minor” to describe when a “violation” of the criminal statutes
had to occur and added the new phrase “regardless of whether the injury
occurred while such a person was a minor” to describe when a “personal
injury” can occur. 120 Stat. at 650.
                      ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.                         9

bring a claim within ten years after the date on which the
plaintiff reasonably discovers the violation that forms the
basis for the claim. 18 U.S.C. § 2255(b)(1)(A). The
“violation” that forms the basis for the claim is described in
§ 2255(a) as a specified predicate offense that occurred
when the plaintiff was a minor. 5 Second, a plaintiff may
bring a claim within ten years after the date on which the
plaintiff reasonably discovers “the injury that forms the basis
for the claim.” Id. § 2255(b)(1)(B). The “injury” is
described in § 2255(a) as a “personal injury” suffered as a
result of the predicate offense, “regardless of whether the
injury occurred while such person was a minor.”
    The statute does not define the term “personal injury.”
When statutory terms “have accumulated settled meaning
under . . . the common law . . . a court must infer, unless the
statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to
incorporate the established meaning of these terms.” United
States v. Kelly, 676 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U.S. 322, 329 (1981)). The
term “personal injury” has long been recognized as referring
to torts or tort-like injuries, including both physical torts and
dignitary torts such as defamation. See United States v.
Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 234 & n.6 (1992) (interpreting the
phrase “personal injuries” in 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) as
incorporating common-law tort concepts and including
nonphysical injuries); see also Injury, Black’s Law
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “personal injury” as
“[a]ny invasion of a personal right, including mental
suffering . . . .”). In the context of § 2255, “pornography
injures a child’s reputation and emotional well-being” just

5
 Therefore, we reject Elden’s argument that he can bring an action based
on violations that occurred when he was an adult.
10                 ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

“[l]ike a defamatory statement” and creates “reputational,
emotional and privacy injuries” that constitute personal
injuries. Doe v. Boland, 698 F.3d 877, 880–81 (6th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    In Boland, two young girls sought damages under 18
U.S.C. §§ 2252A(f) and 2255 from a defendant who digitally
manipulated photographs of them “to make it look like the
children were engaged in sex acts.” 698 F.3d at 879. At
issue was “whether the plaintiffs suffered a resulting
‘personal injury’” from the defendant’s acts. Id. at 880. The
Sixth Circuit compared the nature of the injury caused by a
defamatory statement to the injury caused by the
dissemination of the pornographic material and determined
that child pornography “injures a child’s reputation and
emotional well-being and violates the individual interest in
avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). It therefore
concluded that “like defamation, those harms are ‘personal
injuries.’” Id. at 881. We agree with the Sixth Circuit that
plaintiffs suffer “personal injury” that is analogous to
injuries caused by defamation and other dignitary torts upon
the publication or distribution of the pornographic material
depicting them.
    Like victims of defamation, victims of child
pornography may suffer a new injury upon the republication
of the pornographic material. It is well-settled that “[e]very
repetition of a defamation is a publication in itself” and that
“each and every publication . . . of a defamatory statement
to a third person constitutes a new publication which gives
rise to a cause of action.” 50 Am. Jur. 2d Libel and Slander
§ 244; see also 5 B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law,
ch. IX, § 633 (11th ed. 2023) (“If the defendant reprints or
circulates a libelous writing, this has the same effect as an
                   ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.                  11

original publication.”). Indeed, “[i]t is the general rule that
each communication of the same defamatory matter by the
same defamer, whether to a new person or to the same
person, is a separate and distinct publication, for which a
separate cause of action arises.” Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 577A (Am. L. Inst. 1977). Accordingly, we
conclude that each republication of child pornography can
constitute a new personal injury analogous to injuries caused
by defamation and other dignitary torts.
    This conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court’s
view that “every viewing of child pornography is a repetition
of the victim’s abuse.” Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S.
434, 457 (2014) (stated in the context of claims for
restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a)). Similarly, in the
context of considering First Amendment challenges to child
pornography laws, the Court has recognized that “[l]ike a
defamatory statement, each new publication of the [child
pornography depicting the child victim] would cause new
injury to the child’s reputation and emotional well-being.”
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 249 (2002).
The online dissemination of child pornography haunts
victims long after their original images or videos are created.
As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he victim’s
knowledge of publication of the visual material increases the
emotional and psychic harm suffered by the child.” New
York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 759 n.10 (1982) (quoting T.C.
Donnelly, Note, Protection of Children from Use in
Pornography: Toward Constitutional and Enforceable
Legislation, 12 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 295, 301 (1979)). This
is because “[a] child who has posed for a camera must go
through life knowing that the recording is circulating within
the mass distribution system for child pornography.” Id.
(quoting David P. Shouvlin, Preventing the Sexual
12                 ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

Exploitation of Children: A Model Act, 17 Wake Forest L.
Rev. 535, 545 (1981)).
    Reading § 2255(b)(1)(B) in this light, we hold that if a
predicate criminal offense occurred when the plaintiff was a
minor, the statute of limitations does not run until ten years
after the victim reasonably discovers a personal injury
resulting from the offense, which may include republication
of the child pornography that was the basis of the predicate
criminal offense.
                              B
    We now apply these principles to determine whether
Elden’s complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.
According to his complaint, Elden was the victim of
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a) while he was a minor and
suffered personal injuries as a result of the violations during
his adulthood.
    We first consider the time frame for the limitations
period in § 2255(b)(1)(A), providing that a complaint must
be brought within ten years from the date on which the
plaintiff reasonably discovers the violation that forms the
basis for the claim. Under § 2255(a), the violation that forms
the basis for the claim must occur when the victim is a minor.
Elden turned 18 in 2009. There is no dispute that Elden was
aware of the distribution of the Nevermind cover starting at
a very young age and thus could reasonably discover any
additional violations of § 2252A(a) as they occurred.
Therefore, even if a violation of § 2252A(a) occurred in
2009, while Elden was still a minor, Elden would have had
to bring his action by 2019 to avoid the bar of
§ 2255(b)(1)(A), which he failed to do.
                   ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.                 13

    We next turn to the time frame for the limitations period
in § 2255(b)(1)(B), providing that a complaint must be
brought within ten years from the date on which the plaintiff
reasonably discovers the personal injury that forms the basis
for the claim.
    The allegations in Elden’s complaint are enough to
render the claim timely under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(b)(1)(B).
The complaint alleges that Defendants committed a
predicate offense when they “knowingly possessed,
transported, reproduced, advertised, promoted, presented,
distributed, provided, and obtained commercial child
pornography depicting [Elden].” These alleged violations
began in 1991, when the photograph was taken, and were
ongoing. The violations therefore occurred “while [Elden
was] a minor.” 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Elden seeks damages
for “personal injuries” he alleges he suffered “as a result of
such violation[s].” Id. § 2255(a). Elden alleges he suffered
the personal injuries “during the ten years preceding this
action,” including the Defendants’ redistribution of the
Nevermind album in 2021. Because that and other
republications can constitute personal injuries under
§ 2255(b)(1)(B), Elden had ten years from the date of
reasonable discovery of those injuries to file his complaint.
Elden’s complaint covered only injuries discovered in the
preceding ten years, so his claim is timely under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2255(b)(1)(B).
                              C
    In opposing this conclusion, Defendants argue that a
plaintiff “reasonably discovers” the “injury that forms the
basis for the claim” for purposes of § 2255(b)(1)(B) when
the plaintiff knows that a particular offender is responsible
for the predicate offense and subsequent injuries. Said
14                 ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

otherwise, Defendants argue that once the plaintiff knows
the identity of the defendant that committed the predicate
offense, the plaintiff cannot claim to have discovered new
injuries by the same offenders. Therefore, Defendants
argue, because Elden was aware that the Defendants had
committed the predicate offense, and knew about the
Defendants’ dissemination of the album cover for more than
ten years, he cannot claim that he discovered new injuries
caused by Defendants’ subsequent distributions of the album
cover within the ten-year limitations period.
    This reading is not supported by the statute’s text, which
does not differentiate between the original offender and
other parties. Logically, the child pornography victim
suffers the same injury whether a new individual or the
original creator redistributes the image. If a victim learns a
defendant has distributed child pornography and does not
sue, but then later learns the defendant has done so again
many years later, the statute of limitations in § 2255(b)(1)(B)
does not prevent the plaintiff from bringing a claim based on
that new injury. The Defendants’ contention that the injury
from a defendant’s renewed distribution of child
pornography is “a one-time occurrence” is in tension with
Congress’s determination that personal injuries can occur
after the initial offense when the victim is no longer a minor.
    Nor is this case analogous to cases examining whether a
plaintiff’s discovery of the full extent of the injuries
stemming from the original injury gives rise to a new cause
of action after the statute of limitations for bringing a cause
of action for the original injury has run. See, e.g., Stephens
v. Clash, 796 F.3d 281, 288 (3d Cir. 2015). The issue in such
cases involves whether a realization of the latent effects of a
defendant’s initial violation constitutes an additional injury
and whether any such injury was reasonably discovered
                    ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.                   15

within the ten years before the complaint was filed. In
Stephens, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a
complaint under § 2255(a) because the plaintiff did not
allege he suffered cognizable injuries within the limitations
period. Id. at 289. Rather, the plaintiff had been “aware that
his legal rights had been violated and he had suffered an
injury at the time he and [the defendant] consummated their
sexual relationship,” and his alleged inability to “fully
appreciate all of the consequences of [the] violation” within
the limitations period constituted “ignorance regarding the
full extent of his injury” rather than a newly discovered
injury that could form the basis of a claim. Id. at 288–89.
By contrast, Elden’s complaint does allege new injuries,
stemming from the Defendants’ redistribution of the album
cover during the ten years prior to the action, within the
limitations period. In these situations, the Third Circuit held,
§ 2255 is available to “remedy[] the harms caused by the
distribution of child pornography.” Id. at 285–86. This is
because “each act of distribution injures the child
pornography victim such that an omniscient plaintiff would
have a provable cause of action upon the completion of the
act.” Id. at 286 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
    Similarly, the Defendants’ argument that Congress’s
codification of a discovery rule in § 2255(b) displaces any
common-law discovery principles is misplaced. Elden does
not allege that the Defendants’ actions beyond the
limitations period resulted in harm that he discovered
belatedly, or otherwise rely on common-law discovery rules.
Rather, he alleges that he discovered new injuries caused by
the Defendants’ actions within the limitations period.
    Because Elden’s claim is not barred by the ten-year
statute of limitations set forth in § 2255(b)(1)(B), the district
16                    ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C.

court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss on
statute of limitations grounds.
     REVERSED AND REMANDED. 6

6
  Child USA and Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc.’s motion for
leave to file an amicus curiae brief, Dkt. 14, is GRANTED.