SUTTON ROLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW WORLD PICTURES, 
             LTD., aka: NEW WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.; ODYSSEY FILM 
            PARTNERS, LTD., AKA: ODYSSEY ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.; WALTER 
                    COBLENZ; WILLIAM CONDON; GINNY CERRELLA, 
                             Defendants-Appellees.

                                  No. 92-56116

              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


               19 F.3d 479; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5259; 30 U.S.P.Q.2D 
            (BNA) 1654; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27,233; 140 A.L.R. Fed. 
           813; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2034; 94 Daily Journal DAR 
                                      3748

          January 31, 1994, Argued, Submitted, Pasadena, California 
                             March 23, 1994, Filed

OPINION

TANG, Circuit Judge:

   This appeal arises from Sutton Roley's ("Roley") action against Walter
Coblenz ("Coblenz") and New World Entertainment Limited ("New World") for
copyright infringement. Roley appeals the grant of two summary judgments against
him and in favor of Coblenz and New World. Roley challenges the district court's
conclusion that his infringement claims are barred by the copyright statute of
limitations at 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).

   BACKGROUND

   Some time before 1972, Roley wrote a screenplay originally entitled "A Little
Visit Home." He renamed the screenplay "Sleep Tight Little Sister."

   In 1985, Roley gave Coblenz, a friend and successful film producer, the
original copy of his work, hoping that [**2]  Coblenz would produce the
screenplay. Coblenz declined the proposed project.

   Two years later, in August 1987, Coblenz invited Roley to the screening of
his new movie "Sister, Sister." New World was a financier of the film. After
viewing the screening, Roley claimed that the movie was a production of his
screenplay "Sleep Tight Little Sister." Coblenz admitted that the film and
screenplay were similar, but advised Roley that the film was based upon a
screenplay entitled "Louisiana Swamp Murders" written by Ginny Cerrella in the
1970's.

   Roley retained counsel to assist him in pursuing his claim that "Sister,
Sister" violated his copyright on "Sleep Tight Little Sister." In late 1987 and
early 1988, New World's insurance carrier, Firemen's Fund, rejected Roley's
claim, advising him that it found no similarity between the two works and, in
any event, the screenplay for the film was written independently of Coblenz.

   Thereafter, the film opened unsuccessfully and was withdrawn from
distribution. It was subsequently shown on television in 1988 and in 1992.
Today, it is available for rental or purchase at home video stores.

   Roley filed his complaint against Coblenz and New World in February [**3]
1991. In June 1992, both Coblenz and New World filed motions for summary
judgment, arguing, in part, that Roley's copyright infringement claims were
barred by the three year statute of limitations mandated by 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).
The district court granted appellees' motions, finding that § 507(b) barred
Roley's infringement claims.

    [*481]  DISCUSSION

   Roley's only contention on this appeal is that the district court erred in
concluding his infringement claims are barred by the three year statute of
limitations mandated by § 507(b). n1 For him to succeed, Roley must demonstrate
that either a genuine issue of material fact exists, or that the district court
incorrectly applied the relevant law. See F.D.I.C. v. O'Melveny & Meyers, 969
F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 543
(1993).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

   n1 Despite Roley's contention, appellees argue that the district court's
order granting their motions for summary judgment had several bases, thus they
urge that the statute of limitations is not the only issue on this appeal. Our
decision on the statute of limitations issue obviates the need to take up other
issues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**4]

   Section 507(b) states:

No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it
is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

A cause of action for copyright infringement accrues when one has knowledge of a
violation or is chargeable with such knowledge.  Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber 
of Commerce, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 1128, 1135 (D. Nev. 1980).

   Roley alleged infringement after first viewing the screening of "Sister,
Sister" in August 1987. There is no dispute that Roley's infringement claims
accrued at that time. Even so, Roley applies the "rolling statute of limitations
" theory. He argues that so long as any allegedly infringing conduct occurs
within the three years preceding the filing of the action, the plaintiff may
reach back and sue for damages or other relief for all allegedly infringing
acts. See Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112, 1118-19 (7th Cir. 1983). The
district court rejected the application of this theory. We do so as well.

   Section 507(b) is clear on its face. "It does not provide for a waiver of
infringing acts within the limitation period if earlier infringements were [**5]
discovered and not sued upon, nor does it provide for any reach back if an act
of infringement occurs within the statutory period." Hoey v. Dexel Systems 
Corp., 716 F. Supp. 222, 223 (E.D. Va. 1989). This interpretation is consistent
with the prevailing view that the statute bars recovery on any claim for damages
that accrued more than three years before commencement of suit. See Stone v. 
Williams, 970 F.2d 1043, 1049-50 (2nd Cir. 1992), ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 2331
(1993); Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11 (6th Cir. 1981); Mount v. 
Book-of-the-Month Club, Inc., 555 F.2d 1108, 1110-11 (2nd Cir. 1977); Kregos v.
Associated Press, 795 F. Supp. 1325, 1330 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Hoey 716 F. Supp. at
223-24; Gaste v. Kaiserman, 669 F. Supp. 583, 584 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); see also Mai
Basic Four, Inc. v. Basis, Inc., 962 F.2d 978, 987 n.9 (10th Cir. 1992); 3 M.
Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 12.05 at  [**6]  12-107 to 12-109
(1992). Lest there be any confusion regarding the law in this Circuit on this
particular point, we adopt this view.

   Roley filed his suit on February 7, 1991. Here, then, § 507(b) bars recovery
of any damages for claims that accrued prior to February 7, 1988. Roley's claims
that appellees' production of "Sister, Sister" infringed his screenplay accrued
before February 7, 1988. Nevertheless, Roley asserts that New World and Coblenz
have continued to infringe his copyright, thus § 507(b) does not bar recovery.
Specifically, Roley alleges that appellees have manifested the distribution of
the allegedly infringing film for public display in theaters and on television,
and that they have manifested the copying of the film on videocassettes for
rental and purchase in home video stores, all within the three years prior to
the filing of this action.

   In a case of continuing copyright infringements, an action may be brought for
all acts that accrued within the three years preceding the filing of the suit.
Baxter v. Curtis Indus., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 100, 101 (N.D. Ohio 1962); see also
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55, 61-62, 56 L. Ed. 92, 32 S. Ct. 20
(1911); [**7]  Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 105 (9th Cir.
1960); Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corp.,  [*482]  162 F.2d 354, 365
(9th Cir. 1947); Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., 47 F. Supp. 1013, 1017-18 (S.D.
Cal. 1942). Here, however, Roley fails to produce any evidence that appellees
engaged in actionable conduct after February 7, 1988. Indeed, his assertions
rely on naked allegations and speculation. Consequently, Roley fails to
demonstrate that either a genuine issue of material fact exists, or that the
district court incorrectly applied the relevant law. The district court's
summary judgments are AFFIRMED.