“Elden’s claim that the photograph on the Nevermind album cover is ‘child pornography’ is, on its face, not serious,” the Nirvana estate also said. They also argued that this isn’t a case of child pornography either. In their initial filing, and in addition to saying Elden profited from his celebrity, the Nirvana estate also said that the statute of limitations for the suit expired over a decade ago. “Failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint shall result in this action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order,” the ruling, in paperwork viewed by SPIN, said.Īlso Read The Top 10 Nirvana Cover Songs, According to Seether’s Shaun Morgan If they make the deadline, then Nirvana’s estate has until January 27 to reply to the refiled suit. However, if Elden’s team doesn’t make that deadline, which is in 10 days, then he won’t have the opportunity to refile.
Now, they have until January 13 to refile a second complaint, which the court said it will “grant defendants’ Motion and give plaintiff one last opportunity to amend his complaint.” In short, Judge Olguin dismissed the case because Elden’s legal team had until last Thursday (December 30) to file an opposition to the Nirvana estate’s request. Olguin dismissed the case “with leave to amend.”
District Court in Central California on Monday, Judge Fernando M. The band’s estate sought to have the case dismissed, saying that Elden had “spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby.'” In U.S. A few weeks ago, Nirvana fired back at Spencer Elden, the naked baby featured on the cover of Nevermind, over his lawsuit alleging child pornography on the album art.
0 kommentar(er)
