## Facts

- Jeffrey S. Sarver, a U.S. Army explosive ordnance disposal technician who served in Iraq, alleged that the film *The Hurt Locker* used his life and experiences without consent through its main character, Staff Sergeant Will James.
- Mark Boal, a journalist embedded with Sarver’s unit in Iraq, followed Sarver extensively and later conducted additional interviews.
- Boal wrote an article about Sarver that appeared in *Playboy* (with a condensed version in *Reader’s Digest*); Sarver alleged he did not consent and objected after seeing an advance copy.
- Boal later wrote the screenplay for *The Hurt Locker*; Sarver alleged the film portrayed him falsely and harmed his reputation.
- Sarver sued various filmmakers and production entities for misappropriation/right of publicity, false light, defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and related claims.
- After transfer to the Central District of California, defendants moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; the district court granted the motions and dismissed all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether California law, including California’s anti-SLAPP statute, applied after transfer, and whether the anti-SLAPP motions were timely in federal court.
2. Whether the film was protected First Amendment expression concerning matters of public interest such that Sarver’s right of publicity and related tort claims could not proceed.
3. Whether Sarver showed a probability of prevailing on his right of publicity, defamation, false light, and other claims sufficient to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims.
- California law and California’s anti-SLAPP statute applied because California had the most significant relationship to the dispute.
- The anti-SLAPP motions were timely and procedurally proper in federal court.
- The film concerned matters of public interest (the Iraq War and improvised explosive devices), satisfying the statute’s protected-activity prong.
- Sarver failed to show a probability of prevailing because the film was fully protected by the First Amendment; the right of publicity claim did not show misappropriation of commercial value and would impose an impermissible content-based speech restriction.
- Defamation and false light failed because Sarver did not identify actionable, provably false statements about him, and the depiction would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Remaining claims (including IIED, fraud, and contract-based theories) also failed for lack of a legally sufficient showing under the anti-SLAPP standard.

## Legal Principles

- California’s anti-SLAPP statute may apply in federal court in diversity-related settings when California has the most significant relationship under applicable conflicts principles.
- A film addressing war and related military subjects constitutes speech in connection with a public issue for anti-SLAPP purposes.
- The First Amendment protects expressive works that use real-world experiences as source material and transform them into a narrative; applying right of publicity law to such expression can be an impermissible content-based restriction absent a compelling state interest.
- A right of publicity claim generally requires more than objection to depiction; the plaintiff must show misappropriation of commercially valuable identity rather than mere use of biographical elements in an expressive work.
- Defamation and false light require actionable false assertions of fact; fictionalized or non-provably-false portrayals in an expressive work do not, without more, satisfy those elements.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that California’s anti-SLAPP framework applied and that Sarver could not show a probability of prevailing because the challenged film was protected expressive speech on a matter of public interest; his publicity, defamation, and related tort claims were therefore properly stricken and dismissed.


Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016)