Sarver v. Chartier, No. 11-56986 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff Jeffrey Sarver filed suit against defendants, contending that Will James, the main character in the Oscar-winning film "The Hurt Locker," is based on his life and experiences and that he did not consent to such use and that several scenes in the film falsely portray him in a way that has harmed his reputation. The district court dismissed all of Sarver’s claims. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that it had little basis to conclude that New Jersey is Sarver's legal domicile at the time the film was released. Even assuming arguendo that New Jersey was Sarver’s domicile, the court concluded that California contacts predominate, and the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts section 145 factors weigh in favor of the application of California's anti-SLAPP law, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16. Under section 6 Second Restatement principles, California had the most significant relationship to this litigation, which was sufficient to overcome any presumption of Sarver's domicile. The court also concluded that defendants' anti-SLAPP motions were timely filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. On the merits, the court concluded that the film and the narrative of its central character Will James speak directly to issues of a public nature, and Sarver has failed to state and substantiate a legally sufficient claim. The film is speech that is fully protected by the First Amendment, which safeguards the storytellers and artists who take the raw materials of life - including the stories of real individuals, ordinary or extraordinary - and transform them into art. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions. Finally, the court concluded that Sarver’s false light invasion of privacy, defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation claims were properly dismissed. The court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: California Anti-SLAPP / Choice of Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to filmmakers/defendants’ motions to strike the complaint under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, California’s Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute, of plaintiff Army Sergeant Jeffrey Sarver’s lawsuit relating to the Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker. Sarver contended that Will James, The Hurt Locker’s main character, was based on his life and experiences when he served as an United States Army explosive ordnance disposal technician in Iraq; that he did not consent to such use; and that some scenes in the film falsely portrayed him in a way that harmed his reputation. The panel applied the choice-of-law rules of New Jersey, and concluded that the California contacts predominated, and the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts § 145 factors weighed in favor of the application of California law. The panel considered the section 6 Second Restatement principles, and concluded that California had the most significant 4 SARVER V. CHARTIER relationship to this litigation, which was sufficient to overcome any presumption of Sarver’s domicile, wherever that may be. The panel applied California’s anti-SLAPP law. The panel held that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(f), which generally provides that an anti-SLAPP motion be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint, did not apply in federal court. The panel held that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions were timely filed. Turning to the merits of the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, the panel applied the statute’s two-step analysis. First, the panel held that The Hurt Locker film and the narrative of its central character Will James spoke directly to issues of a public nature. Second, the panel held that The Hurt Locker was speech that was fully protected by the First Amendment, which safeguards the storytellers and artists who take the raw materials of life and transform them into art, such as movies. The panel held that because Sarver could not show a compelling state interest in preventing the defendants’ speech, applying California’s right of publicity law – which prohibits a person from using a celebrity’s name or likeness without consent – in this case would violate the First Amendment. The panel concluded that because Sarver could not state a right of publicity claim, the district court did not err in granting the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion regarding the claim. The panel concluded that Sarver’s false light invasion of privacy, defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation claims were properly dismissed. SARVER V. CHARTIER 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.