## Facts

- Natalie Clark, a minor, sued three minor peers—Nick Roccanova, Michael Rudy, and Jack Lynch—under federal child-pornography provisions in Chapter 110 of Title 18.
- The complaint alleged that in 2006 the defendants coerced, enticed, and persuaded Clark to produce a sexually explicit video of herself.
- The complaint further alleged that the defendants transmitted the video in interstate commerce via the internet.
- Clark asserted civil claims predicated on alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 (sexual exploitation of children) and 2252 (interstate transportation/transmission of child pornography).
- Each defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Rudy also moved to strike portions of the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252 apply to minors, such that minors can be civil defendants under Chapter 110.
2. Whether the doctrine of in pari delicto bars a minor plaintiff’s civil claims when the plaintiff allegedly participated in creating the sexually explicit material.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims against each defendant sufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6), including whether certain counts against Lynch failed as pleaded.

## Decision

- The court held that the statutory term “person” in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252 includes minors; the statutes are not limited to adult offenders.
- The court rejected the defendants’ in pari delicto defense at the pleading stage, concluding the doctrine did not bar a minor victim’s civil claims under these child-protection statutes.
- Roccanova’s motion to dismiss was denied.
- Rudy’s motion to dismiss was denied, and his motion to strike was denied.
- Lynch’s motion to dismiss was denied as to Count 1 and granted as to Counts 2 and 3.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and assesses whether the pleading plausibly states a claim.
- Where Congress uses “person” in a criminal statute and statutory definitions and context indicate no age limitation, the term may include minors.
- Common-law fault-allocation defenses such as in pari delicto are disfavored when their application would defeat a statute’s protective purpose, particularly where the plaintiff falls within the class the statute was enacted to protect.
- Allegations of coercion and the plaintiff’s status as a minor can defeat an assertion that the plaintiff is “equally at fault” for purposes of in pari delicto at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the minor plaintiff’s core civil claims under federal child-pornography statutes to proceed, holding that minors can fall within the statutes’ reach as “persons” and that a minor victim’s alleged participation in producing sexually explicit material does not, at the pleading stage, bar recovery under in pari delicto; only certain counts against one defendant were dismissed for insufficient pleading.


Clark v. Roccanova, 772 F. Supp. 2d 844 (E.D. Ky. 2011)