Marciano Brunette Lawsuit 2025, Reality TV Star Sues Demi Engemann for Sexual Assault Defamation Claims
Vanderpump Villa star Marciano Brunette filed a federal defamation lawsuit on December 5, 2025, against Secret Lives of Mormon Wives cast member Demi Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions. The 32-year-old reality TV personality alleges Engemann falsely branded him a “sexual predator” and fabricated sexual assault claims that destroyed his career, resulting in lost job opportunities, public harassment, and severe reputational damage.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, centers on a disputed August 2024 encounter during Vanderpump Villa filming in Italy. Brunette claims what happened was consensual—a brief kiss with continued friendly contact for months afterward. Engemann now says the interaction was unwanted assault. The case has escalated into one of reality TV’s most explosive legal battles over how networks handle serious misconduct allegations.
What Is the Marciano Brunette Lawsuit About?
The civil defamation complaint names two defendants: Demi Engemann personally and Jeff Jenkins Productions, the company producing The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives on Hulu.
Brunette’s legal team at Dynamis LLP alleges Engemann “reframed the obviously consensual interaction as one of sexual misconduct and then as sexual assault” after facing public criticism over her conduct. The lawsuit claims this narrative shift was motivated by her need to deflect attention from her own controversial behavior while married.
The production company faces separate allegations of amplifying false claims for profit. According to court filings, Jeff Jenkins Productions built major Season 3 storylines around Engemann’s accusations, aired them repeatedly across multiple episodes, and denied Brunette any meaningful opportunity to respond—despite having extensive footage and information that allegedly contradicted her account.
Timeline of Events Leading to the Defamation Lawsuit
August 2024: Brunette and Engemann meet during Vanderpump Villa filming in Italy. According to the complaint, they flirted, spoke privately, and shared a consensual kiss off-camera. Brunette claims Engemann told him “I love you” during this period.
August-December 2024: The lawsuit alleges Engemann maintained frequent contact with Brunette through phone calls, FaceTime sessions, text messages, and invitations to visit her in Utah and California. She allegedly shared her location with him.
April 2025: After Vanderpump Villa footage featuring their interaction was about to air, Brunette posted a TikTok implying Engemann feared he would tell her husband “the truth.” Engemann allegedly responded by calling Brunette a “sexual predator” who “can’t keep his hands to himself.”
May 2025: Engemann appeared on The Viall Files podcast, where she allegedly described being “groped” and “sexually assaulted”—claims the lawsuit says clearly referenced Brunette given the Vanderpump Villa context. She also told a reporter “nothing happened” in Italy, creating inconsistent accounts.
November 13, 2025: The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives Season 3 premiered on Hulu, featuring Engemann’s allegations across multiple episodes. Cast members questioned her credibility on camera.
December 5, 2025: Brunette filed his federal defamation lawsuit in Utah District Court.
December 5, 2025: Season 3 reunion episode aired, where Engemann doubled down on assault claims, stating survivors can continue relationships with assailants as a “trauma response.”
Legal Claims in the Marciano Brunette Defamation Case
The complaint asserts two distinct legal theories:
Defamation Per Se
Brunette alleges Engemann’s statements constitute defamation per se—false statements so inherently harmful they don’t require proof of specific damages. Accusations of sexual assault and labeling someone a “sexual predator” fall into this category because they:
- Impute serious criminal conduct
- Harm professional reputation in Brunette’s entertainment career
- Expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule
Specific statements identified as defamatory include calling Brunette a “sexual predator,” claiming he committed “sexual assault,” alleging “groping” and “two ass grabs,” later claiming he “grabbed” her “privates,” and suggesting other women would come forward with similar accusations.
Defamation by Implication
The lawsuit also alleges defamation by implication, arguing that even if individual statements might seem vague, when viewed together and in context, they clearly accuse Brunette of criminal sexual conduct.
What the Lawsuit Says Happened vs. What Engemann Claims
Brunette’s Account
The complaint describes a consensual encounter where both parties expressed romantic interest. Key evidence includes:
- Text message screenshots showing continued contact
- Records of multiple phone calls and FaceTime sessions
- Invitations from Engemann for Brunette to visit
- Location sharing between them
- No mention of assault or unwanted contact for eight months
Brunette’s attorney argues this behavior reflects “warmth and familiarity, not fear or avoidance” expected from an assault victim.
Engemann’s Position
Engemann maintains the physical interaction was unwanted. On the Season 3 reunion, she stated: “You never deserve unwanted touch” and explained that continuing contact doesn’t disprove assault because “you can be sexually assaulted and then also continue a relationship.”
She characterized ongoing contact as a “trauma response and having a lack of boundaries.”
Lisa Vanderpump Weighs In on Sexual Assault Allegations
Vanderpump Villa executive producer Lisa Vanderpump publicly defended Brunette in a November 23, 2025 Access Hollywood interview. She claimed comprehensive knowledge of events: “I categorically know what happened because we have cameras everywhere and I have seen every ounce of the footage.”
Vanderpump suggested cast members who doubted Engemann’s story “have got a very good reason” and stated she possesses “all the footage” addressing “any allegations against Marciano.”
Engemann later told Entertainment Tonight that Vanderpump was “not being truthful.” She claimed she sent a demand letter requesting footage but was told the production did not have access to it—directly contradicting Vanderpump’s assertions.
Allegations Against Jeff Jenkins Productions
The lawsuit doesn’t stop with Engemann. It accuses the production company of:
Amplifying False Claims for Profit: Building major storylines around unverified assault allegations to boost ratings and drama.
Denial of Due Process: Cutting Brunette from the narrative while airing Engemann’s accusations across multiple episodes and the reunion special without giving him opportunity to respond.
Ignoring Red Flags: The complaint alleges producers had “obvious reasons to doubt Engemann’s account” including:
- Cast skepticism aired on camera (one castmate suggesting Engemann was lying)
- Facts inconsistent with assault (continued communication, including interactions involving children)
- Extensive filmed footage from the chateau that could verify or refute claims
- Inconsistencies in Engemann’s shifting timeline and accounts
Republication Liability: Under defamation law, those who repeat false statements can be held liable. The lawsuit argues Jeff Jenkins Productions didn’t just report Engemann’s claims—they editorially integrated them into storylines designed for maximum dramatic impact.
Career Impact and Damages Sought
Brunette’s complaint details severe professional and personal consequences:
Lost Professional Opportunities: He claims he lost a role on an unnamed reality dating show specifically because of the sexual assault allegations.
Career Interruption: Brunette put his DJ career on hold after losing a high-profile gig at a Las Vegas nightclub following the accusations.
Public Harassment: The lawsuit alleges “harassment by strangers” resulting from widespread circulation of Engemann’s statements on television and social media.
Mental Anguish: Brunette claims lasting psychological harm from being publicly branded a sexual predator.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages. Brunette also requests a “narrowly tailored injunction” preventing Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions from repeating any statements the court determines are defamatory.
Legal Framework: Understanding Defamation Law in Sexual Assault Cases
Elements Required to Prove Defamation
To win his case, Brunette must establish:
- False Statement: The claims about sexual assault were untrue
- Publication: Statements were communicated to third parties (broadcast on Hulu, discussed on podcasts, shared on social media)
- Fault: Engemann acted with at least negligence; Jeff Jenkins Productions knew or should have known the statements were false
- Damages: Brunette suffered harm (career losses, reputational damage, emotional distress)
Special Considerations in Sexual Assault Defamation Cases
Federal courts recognize heightened sensitivity when defamation claims intersect with sexual assault allegations. Truth becomes the central battleground—Brunette must prove the encounter was consensual, while defendants may argue it wasn’t.
The case highlights a growing legal trend: alleged assailants increasingly use defamation suits to contest sexual misconduct accusations, particularly when criminal statutes of limitations have passed or no criminal charges were filed.
Anti-SLAPP Considerations
Engemann’s defense team may file an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion arguing her statements involved matters of public concern and are protected by First Amendment rights to discuss personal experiences.
However, anti-SLAPP protections typically don’t shield provably false factual statements, especially those alleging specific criminal conduct.
What Happens Next in Federal Court
Immediate Next Steps
Defendants’ Response Deadline: Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions must file answers or motions to dismiss within 21 days of service.
Potential Anti-SLAPP Motion: Defense may seek early dismissal claiming First Amendment protections.
Discovery Phase: If the case survives dismissal motions, both sides will exchange evidence including:
- All footage from Vanderpump Villa filming
- Text messages and call records
- Social media posts and deleted content
- Witness depositions from cast members
- Expert testimony on trauma responses and consent
Possible Outcomes
Settlement: Many high-profile defamation cases settle before trial to avoid public disclosure of sensitive evidence and uncertain jury verdicts.
Summary Judgment: Either party may move for judgment without trial if undisputed facts support their position.
Trial: If the case proceeds, a jury would determine whether statements were false, defamatory, and caused damages.
Appeals: The losing party would likely appeal, potentially extending litigation for years.
Timeline Expectations
Civil defamation cases typically take 18-36 months from filing to resolution. Complex cases involving discovery disputes, multiple defendants, and cross-country witnesses often exceed two years.
Broader Implications for Reality TV and Defamation Law
Reality Television Under Legal Scrutiny
The Marciano Brunette lawsuit represents rare legal scrutiny of how reality TV producers handle serious misconduct allegations. Key questions include:
- Do producers have a duty to investigate claims before airing them?
- Can networks be held liable for platforming unverified accusations?
- How do contractual waivers interact with defamation protections?
Precedent for Sexual Assault Allegations in Media
If Brunette prevails, the case could establish precedent affecting:
- How reality shows handle assault allegations
- Whether production companies face liability for editorial choices
- Standards for airing serious criminal accusations
Conversely, if Engemann prevails, it may embolden survivors to speak publicly about experiences despite defamation threats.
The #MeToo Era and Defamation Claims
Legal experts note a post-#MeToo trend of alleged perpetrators filing defamation suits to contest public accusations. These cases force courts to balance:
- Constitutional free speech protections
- Reputational rights of the accused
- Survivor advocacy and the right to share experiences
- Public interest in addressing sexual misconduct
What Affected Parties Should Know
For Reality TV Participants
This case underscores critical considerations for anyone signing reality TV contracts:
Document Everything: Maintain records of all interactions, communications, and events that might later become disputed.
Understand Contracts: Reality TV waivers often include broad releases, but they may not shield producers from defamation liability for knowingly false statements.
Legal Review: Consult attorneys before signing contracts and before making public statements about other cast members.
For Sexual Assault Survivors
The lawsuit highlights complex realities survivors face when speaking publicly:
Truth as Defense: Truthful statements about assault generally cannot be defamatory, but proving truth in court requires evidence and often means relitigating traumatic events.
Emotional Costs: Defending against defamation claims can be financially and emotionally draining, even when statements are true.
Strategic Considerations: Survivors should consult attorneys experienced in defamation defense before making public accusations, understanding this doesn’t mean remaining silent—only being informed of potential risks.
For Those Accused
The case also illustrates considerations for individuals facing public allegations:
Documentation Matters: Brunette’s lawsuit relies heavily on text messages and communication records suggesting consensual interaction.
Strategic Silence: Some attorneys advise against public denials because calling someone a liar can itself trigger defamation claims from the accuser.
Legal Options: When criminal prosecution isn’t pursued or statutes have lapsed, civil defamation suits offer an avenue to contest false accusations—though success requires proving falsity, which courts scrutinize carefully.
Recent Developments and Social Media Reaction
Following the lawsuit filing, Brunette posted an Instagram Reel on December 6, 2025, featuring audio about “getting even.” The clip included the message: “Somebody do something to me, I’ll do something to them, this is common sense. So you believe in getting even? Hell to the yeah.”
The post generated divided reactions. Supporters viewed it as justified response to career-damaging false allegations. Critics argued it demonstrated vindictive motivation rather than truth-seeking.
Entertainment media outlets including TMZ, The Wrap, Parade, and Lawyer Monthly have extensively covered the case, with most reporting focusing on the stark conflict between Brunette’s consensual encounter narrative and Engemann’s assault claims.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Marciano Brunette Lawsuit
When was the Marciano Brunette lawsuit filed?
The defamation lawsuit was filed December 5, 2025, in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The timing coincided with the premiere of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives Season 3 reunion episode where Engemann reiterated her assault allegations.
What specific damages is Marciano Brunette seeking?
The complaint requests unspecified monetary damages for lost professional opportunities, reputational harm, and mental anguish. Brunette also seeks an injunction preventing defendants from repeating statements determined to be defamatory. No specific dollar amount is stated in the public filings.
Can Marciano Brunette win this defamation case?
Success depends on proving Engemann’s statements were false, not protected opinion, and caused measurable damages. Brunette’s evidence includes text messages suggesting continued friendly contact inconsistent with assault. However, defamation cases involving sexual assault allegations are notoriously difficult because determining consent often becomes a “he said, she said” credibility contest.
What does defamation per se mean in this context?
Defamation per se refers to statements so inherently harmful they don’t require proof of specific damages. Accusations of serious criminal conduct like sexual assault automatically qualify. If Brunette proves the statements were false, damages are presumed—though he still must prove falsity.
Is Demi Engemann facing criminal charges?
No. This is a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages, not criminal prosecution. Brunette is suing Engemann for defamation, not accusing her of any crime. She faces no criminal exposure from these filings.
What role does Lisa Vanderpump’s statement play?
Vanderpump’s claim that she “categorically know[s] what happened” because she reviewed all footage could become crucial evidence. If producers possess footage contradicting Engemann’s assault narrative, it could support Brunette’s falsity argument. However, Engemann disputes Vanderpump has such footage.
How long will the Marciano Brunette lawsuit take?
Civil defamation cases typically require 18-36 months from filing to resolution. This case may extend longer due to multiple defendants, complex discovery involving footage and communications, and potential appeals. Settlement remains possible at any stage.
What happens if Marciano Brunette loses?
If Brunette loses, he receives no damages and must pay his own legal fees (and potentially defendants’ fees if the court finds the suit frivolous). A loss could further damage his reputation by judicially validating Engemann’s assault claims. However, losing doesn’t automatically mean the assault occurred—only that Brunette failed to prove falsity by required legal standards.
Disclaimer: This article provides information about an ongoing legal matter. The lawsuit contains allegations that have not been proven in court. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice. Individuals facing similar situations should consult licensed attorneys in their jurisdiction.
Resources:
- If you or someone you know has experienced sexual assault, contact RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-4673 (available 24/7)
- For defamation legal information, consult state bar associations or Legal Aid organizations
Last Updated: December 9, 2025
This article will be updated as new developments emerge in the Marciano Brunette v. Demi Engemann defamation lawsuit.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah