Loading...
Summary: Leo DiCaprio has just been ordered to testify in a real life Wolf of Wall Street lawsuit.
Leonardo DiCaprio’s role in The Wolf of Wall Street didn’t land him an Oscar, but it has earned him a day in court. A New York judge ordered the environment-loving actor to testify in a $50 million defamation lawsuit that stemmed from the 2013 film.
Andrew Greene was an executive at Jordan Belfort’s stock brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont, which was the setting for Martin Scorcese’s Oscar-nominated film. He claimed he was defamed by the movie because he was portrayed poorly through the character Nicky “Rugrat” Koskof, played by P.J. Byrne.
Rugrat was best known for wearing a ridiculous toupee, but he was also a criminal, drug user, and womanizer. The filmmakers claim the character was purely fictional and a composite of numerous people. Paramount Studios said that, “No reasonable fact finder could claim that ‘Nicky’ was a recognizable likeness of Andrew Greene.”
Andrew Greene vs. Nicky Koskof. Photo courtesy of CNN.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Greene, however, disagreed and sued the filmmakers and studio. He said that he too wore a toupee and was often the butt of his colleagues’ jokes, just like Rugrat. In real life, Greene was not charged with any crimes, but Rugrat was charged with money laundering.
Greene’s lawyers have already questioned the film’s director Scorcese as well as the screenwriter Terence Winter. They next want to question DiCaprio, who was confused as to why he was being brought in.
- Related: “Leo DiCaprio Invests in Trash”
According to US Weekly, Dicrapio’s attorneys argued that he did not direct the film, portray Rugrat, or write the screenplay so his testimony was irrelevant. Greene’s legal team said that the high-powered actor was involved with the film’s development and therefore must testify.
Paramount Studios said that the fictional film is protected by the First Amendment and that the filmmakers did not act with malice, a stipulation of a defamation win. Judge Joanna Seybert said that Greene could sue for “libel by fiction” but not for “invasion of privacy” because his name was not used.
Greene must prove that people who saw the film would recognize Rugrat as himself.
Do you think DiCaprio should testify? Does Andrew Greene have a case? Let us know in the comments below.
Source: Us Weekly and The Telegraph
