U.S. District Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen has dismissed a lawsuit against the filmmakers behind Oscar Best Picture winner The Hurt Locker that alleged they improperly used the likeness of an actual soldier, Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver. Sarver filed the suit before the Oscars, claiming screenwriter Mark Boal based the film — and its lead character, played by Jeremy Renner — on him and presented him in a false light. Today, Nguyen disagreed, saying “the value of The Hurt Locker unquestionably derived from the creativity and skill of the writers, directors, and producers who conceived, wrote, directed, edited, and produced it.”
Boal was embedded in Sarver’s unit in 2004 and wrote about him and other bomb-disposal experts in Playboy magazine, a story that became the basis for the film. Said Boal today: “The Hurt Locker was inspired by many soldiers I met and interviewed during my time reporting in Iraq and elsewhere. It was a disservice to all of those other soldiers for Sgt. Sarver to claim that he was the only soldier that was the basis for the hero of the film.”
The lawyer for Sarver, who was ordered to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees, said they will appeal the ruling.


“ordered to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees” – That’s very unusual and I’m assuming there’s a story behind it. Any info?
Uh, actually that is very much the norm. If I brought a lawsuit against you and I failed to prove your guilt then I am can/and will be held liable for your legal fees incurred while trying to counter my claims against you.
Well, no, “loser pays” – the idea that the the unsuccessful litigant will pay the fees of the defendant is absolutely not the norm in the US. It is in other parts of the world – Europe, for instance – and many people think it is a change that should be adopted here, but it is not the rule at the moment. My guess is that the Judge thought the suit was frivolous, but I haven’t read the decision.
…and this is a civil suit – there is no “guilt” – that’s a criminal law concept – there is just a determination of liability.
Actually, loser pays IS the norm for frivolity.
Take that! A victiory for Hollywood over a member of the U.S. Military. In the grand scheme of things, this proves that the hard work of the men and women who toil in general obscurity (save for the stars) making films and television is more important than that of the miltiary and the stupid bomb detonators. I hope the serviceman in question has to pay a fortune in lawyers’ fees. I hope he goes broke and has to file for bankruptcy. The moral of the story? DON’T FUCK WITH HOLLYWOOD or you will live to regret it!
No, the moral of the story is, don’t try and take credit, or seek compensation that you don’t deserve, haven’t earned. Why is it easier for you to believe that Boal ripped off one soldier’s life rather than based a character on several soldiers he interviewed and researched? Is it because you are predisposed to judge anyone who works in “Hollywood” as immoral and all military as morally righteous? What happened to you? Someone make you fetch coffee as an unpaid intern? I guess if someone made a movie about dudes who posted comments on Deadline, you’d sue that the character was based on you. And for the record, I am not Mark Boal, have never met Mark Boal, have no affiliation with the film or anyone involved with it other than having paid my $12 to see it in the theater.
thank god they are penalizing narcissists for bringing the ever increasingly bizarre suits that cost us all money in the courts. I think the lawyers should be fined as well when the suits are a real insult to the courts precious resources and time.