“Elden’s decision to not sue these defendants for the past 30 years, despite his decades-long knowledge of their same and unvaried conduct, is dispositive of his claim.

“The time has run,” the new filing states. In their new dismissal motion, Nirvana’s lawyers said Elden’s second amended complaint failed to “identify any new victimization” that Elden “reasonably discovered for the first time after August 2011.” US Federal child pornography law has a 10-year statute that begins when a victim 'reasonably discovers' the violation itself or the harm caused by it. Nirvana are seeking the dismissal of an amended lawsuit against the band brought by the man who was photographed for the cover of their 1991 album, “Nevermind.”Īccording to Rolling Stone, lawyers for the group filed a new motion in a federal court in Los Angeles requesting that Spencer Elden’s second amended complaint – filed January 12 – should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning he wouldn’t be allowed to pursue further legal action on the same grounds.Įlden claims that the band - as well Kurt Cobain’s estate, photographer Kurt Weddle, and various record labels - “intentionally commercially marketed the child pornography depicting Spencer and leveraged the lascivious nature of his image to promote the Nevermind album, the band, and Nirvana’s music, while earning, at a minimum, tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate.”

Is nirvana nevermind cover meaning