Nirvana sued by the baby from Nevermind cover for child pornography

[The Minsky Moment]

Regarding the statue of limitations and California:

October 14, 2019
MarketWatch

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is giving childhood victims of sexual abuse more time to decide whether to file lawsuits, joining several states in expanding the statute of limitations for victims over warnings from school districts that the new rules could bankrupt them.
The law signed Sunday by Gov. Gavin Newsom gives victims of childhood sexual abuse until age 40, or five years from discovery of the abuse, to file civil lawsuits. The previous limit had been 26, or within three years from discovery of the abuse.
It also suspends the statute of limitations for three years — beginning Jan. 1 — giving victims of all ages time to bring lawsuits if they wish.

https://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/california-expands-statute-of-limitations-for-child-sexual-abuse-victims-the-new-law-will-allow-for-more-time-for-victims-to-decide-whether-to-file-lawsuits/

So the timing of the lawsuit is...timely.

California can not expand the statute of limitations for a federal statute.

[The Minsky Moment]

What does "discovery of the abuse" mean? 

Like when they hypnotize people to reveal repressed memories?

In a case like this where the alleged victim was a baby, he might not know what happened until much later if at all.

[Valmy]

This is a civil suit though, right? Not a criminal trial. You can sue somebody for all kinds of things that aren't crimes.

[HVC]

What does "discovery of the abuse" mean? 

Like when they hypnotize people to reveal repressed memories?

In a case like this where the alleged victim was a baby, he might not know what happened until much later if at all.

can you sue for damages for an event you can't remember?

[Valmy]

You can always sue HVC 

[HVC]

You can always sue HVC 

sans comma i got very confused .

[The Minsky Moment]

For additional clarity:

The plaintiff is primarily suing under a federal statute that allows recovery of liquidated money damages by victims of certain kinds of crimes, in this case distribution of child pornography.  The plaintiff is not claiming he was sexually abused (he was not) but that illegal images were created and distributed. It is a civil lawsuit but one based on an alleged violation of criminal law.

The federal statute allows the victim to recover actual damages or $150,000.  That is why everyone is being sued for $150,000 because that is the statutory amount.

The plaintiff also has made a similar claim under the federal sex trafficking laws, which has the same 10 year statute of limitations.  Those laws do not have the $150,000 damages minimum.

Plaintiff is suing in federal court in California - the federal courts have limited jurisdiction.  Because all parties are Cal residents, he can only sue in that court if has a federal claim.  And because it appears the federal claims are time barred, that is a big problem with the lawsuit.

Plaintiff also sued under some California state laws but those claims probably can't stay in federal court if the federal claims are dismissed.  He did not sue under the sexual abuse laws that Tonitrus mentioned because he doesn't allege he was abused.  Instead, he sued under state laws for distribution of private explicit materials, common law negligence, intrusion into private affairs, and violation of the state constitutional right to privacy.  I don't know the limitations period on these claims but there is a decent chance they have passed as well.

[Admiral Yi]

In a case like this where the alleged victim was a baby, he might not know what happened until much later if at all.

He might not know he was on the cover of an album?

[The Minsky Moment]

can you sue for damages for an event you can't remember?

Yes and that is the one of reasons this federal law exists.

[HVC]

can you sue for damages for an event you can't remember?

Yes and that is the one of reasons this federal law exists.

what are the damages? or maybe i'm just misunderstanding what damages actually are

[The Minsky Moment]

In a case like this where the alleged victim was a baby, he might not know what happened until much later if at all.

He might not know he was on the cover of an album?

In this case there is no question he knew well before his 18th birthday.  Therefore because he is past 28 it appears he can't sue unless there was some basis to toll (halt) the limitations period - and the complaint is silent on this.

Hypothetically in a different case, however, the victim might have no idea what happened until much later, if at all.

[The Minsky Moment]

what are the damages? or maybe i'm just misunderstanding what damages actually are

The law says you can get $150,000 even if there are no actual damages.

It's a variety of "statutory" or "liquidated" damages - for example, as in copyright violations of works with little or no discernible economic value.

[Valmy]

You can always sue HVC 

sans comma i got very confused .

I can sue HVC at anytime! Though I am unclear which court has jurisdiction for distress caused by Portuguese exposure.

[HVC]

You can always sue HVC 

sans comma i got very confused .

I can sue HVC at anytime! Though I am unclear which court has jurisdiction for distress caused by Portuguese exposure.

And thanks Minsky. i guess the 150k is just a punitive measure? or, just a  weird thing to do with litigiousness?

[The Minsky Moment]

And thanks Minsky. i guess the 150k is just a punitive measure? or, just a  weird thing to do with litigiousness?

It's mostly deterrence yes.
And also a way to provide some compensation for a person who has been victimized in some sense but has no quantifiable financial loss.