Reality TV Star Marciano Brunette Sues ‘Mormon Wives’ Cast Member Demi Engemann and Producer for Defamation Over “Sexual Predator” Claims He Says Are Lies
“Vanderpump Villa” personality Marciano Brunette filed a defamation lawsuit on December 5, 2024, against “Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” star Demi Engemann and producer Jeff Jenkins Productions. Brunette alleges Engemann falsely labeled him a “sexual predator” and accused him of sexual assault on Hulu’s Season 3 of “Mormon Wives” to create a dramatic storyline. The lawsuit claims what actually happened in August 2024 during filming in Italy was a brief, consensual kiss—not sexual misconduct. Brunette seeks unspecified damages and an injunction preventing further defamatory statements. The case raises critical questions about reality TV’s handling of serious allegations and the balance between entertainment value and reputation protection.
What Is the Marciano Brunette Case?
Marciano Brunette’s defamation lawsuit centers on allegations he claims are completely fabricated. According to court documents filed December 5, 2024, and obtained by TMZ, Brunette is suing two defendants: Demi Engemann (31), a cast member from “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” and Jeff Jenkins Productions, the company that produces the Hulu reality series.
The core dispute involves an encounter between Brunette and Engemann during “Vanderpump Villa” Season 2 filming at a chateau in Italy in August 2024. Both reality stars appeared on the show, which is produced by Lisa Vanderpump.
Brunette maintains they shared a consensual kiss off-camera. Engemann publicly accused him of “unwanted touch,” sexual harassment, and sexual assault. She called him a “sexual predator that can’t keep his hands to himself” during Season 3 of “Mormon Wives,” which aired these allegations as a major storyline.
Brunette’s lawsuit alleges Engemann “reframed the obviously consensual interaction as one of sexual misconduct and then as sexual assault” to generate drama for her reality show. He further claims Jeff Jenkins Productions amplified these false accusations despite having “obvious reasons to doubt Engemann’s account.”
Who Are the Parties Involved?
Plaintiff: Marciano Brunette
Age: 32 years old Known for: Cast member on “Vanderpump Villa,” a Hulu reality series Professional role: Works under Lisa Vanderpump’s employ Background: Gained reality TV prominence through his appearances on the luxury estate-based show
Defendant 1: Demi Engemann
Age: 31 years old Known for: Cast member on “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” (Hulu) Also appeared on: “Vanderpump Villa” Season 2 (where the alleged incident occurred) Marital status: Married with at least one daughter Social media presence: Active on Instagram and other platforms where she made public accusations
Defendant 2: Jeff Jenkins Productions
Role: Production company behind “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” Producer: Jeff Jenkins Platform: Hulu Alleged involvement: Brunette claims the company knowingly aired and amplified false allegations for ratings and profit
Key Witness: Lisa Vanderpump
Position: Executive producer and star of “Vanderpump Villa” Role in case: Present at the villa during the alleged August 2024 incident Public stance: Publicly defended Brunette in November 2024, stating she reviewed all camera footage and knows “categorically what happened”
What Are the Specific Allegations in the Lawsuit?
Brunette’s Account: Consensual Interaction
According to Brunette’s legal complaint, he and Engemann met during “Vanderpump Villa” Season 2 filming in August 2024 at a chateau in Italy. The lawsuit describes their interaction as follows:
They flirted and talked privately during filming. They shared a consensual kiss off-camera. According to Brunette, Engemann told him “I love you” and he responded in kind. Brunette maintains there was “no non-consensual contact, no assault, and nothing ‘predatory’ about any of it.”
After filming wrapped, Brunette claims Engemann maintained friendly, ongoing contact with him for months through multiple channels, including repeated phone calls (including long calls and multiple calls per day), FaceTime sessions (including at least one involving her daughter), text messages with invitations to visit her in Utah and California, and location sharing.
The complaint states this communication pattern demonstrates “warmth and familiarity, not fear or avoidance” and is inconsistent with someone reacting to sexual assault.
Engemann’s Public Accusations
During Season 3 of “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” which aired in 2024, Engemann made several public statements about Brunette:
Called him a “sexual predator that can’t keep his hands to himself” Claimed he “inappropriately touched” her without consent Stated he “sexually assaulted” her during their time filming in Italy Suggested on Instagram that other women would “come forward,” writing: “[A]nxious to see how many other women come forward, I know without a doubt I’m not the first” Defined the encounter using the phrase “unwanted physical touch = assault. PERIOD”
According to the complaint, Engemann did not publicly frame the encounter as sexual assault until months after it occurred—specifically in April 2025, just before “Vanderpump Villa” footage featuring them was set to air.
The Timeline Shift Brunette Alleges
Brunette’s lawsuit claims Engemann’s story evolved over time:
August 2024: Consensual kiss occurs in Italy during filming August 2024 – Early 2025: Engemann maintains friendly contact with Brunette for months April 2025: After Brunette posts a TikTok implying he might tell her husband “the truth,” Engemann responds by calling him a “sexual predator” May 2025: Engemann gives conflicting accounts—telling one reporter “nothing happened” while telling a podcast audience she was “groped” and “sexually assaulted” Season 3 of Mormon Wives: Production airs the sexual assault allegations as a major storyline
Brunette’s legal team argues this timeline demonstrates Engemann “reframed” a consensual moment into sexual misconduct only after facing “public (and private) criticism over her conduct”—specifically regarding her flirtatious behavior with Brunette while married.
What Legal Claims Were Filed?
Defamation (Against Both Defendants)
Brunette’s primary claim is defamation. Under California law, defamation requires proving:
A false statement of fact (not opinion) Publication to a third party Fault amounting to at least negligence (or actual malice for public figures) Damage to reputation
Against Demi Engemann:
Brunette alleges Engemann made false factual statements calling him a “sexual predator” and accusing him of “sexual assault.” These statements were published through Season 3 of “Mormon Wives” (broadcast on Hulu), social media posts on Instagram and other platforms, and interviews with media outlets and podcasts. Brunette claims these statements are defamatory per se—inherently damaging without requiring proof of specific damages—because they accuse him of criminal conduct (sexual assault).
Against Jeff Jenkins Productions:
Brunette alleges the production company republished and amplified Engemann’s defamatory statements. Under California law, one who republishes a defamatory statement may be held liable together with the person who originated the statement. The complaint claims the production company built “major storylines” around Engemann’s accusations, aired the allegations “in a way designed to maximize impact,” and cut Brunette out while “denying him any meaningful opportunity to respond.” Brunette argues the producers had warning signs that should have prompted fact-checking, including cast skepticism aired on camera (at least one castmate saying Engemann was lying), facts inconsistent with assault (continued friendly communication including with children), and the ability to investigate using “extensive filmed footage from the chateau environment.”
What Evidence Does Brunette Provide?
Text Messages
The lawsuit includes alleged text messages from Engemann sent after leaving Italy. One text reportedly shows Engemann inviting Brunette to a premiere event: “Thank you!! It’ll be fun! Omg you should come to our premiere event for sure!! Would be so fun!”
Communication Records
The complaint references months of friendly communication after the alleged August 2024 incident, including phone call records showing repeated calls, FaceTime sessions (including one involving Engemann’s daughter), text message exchanges, and invitations to visit Engemann in California and Utah.
Location Sharing
According to the complaint, Engemann shared her location with Brunette, which his legal team argues “confirms a continued relationship, not a person reacting to sexual assault.”
Public Statements
The lawsuit cites Engemann’s own inconsistent public statements, including telling a reporter in May 2025 that “nothing happened” in Italy while simultaneously telling a podcast audience she was “groped” and “sexually assaulted.”
What Is Demi Engemann’s Version of Events?
Engemann maintains her allegations are truthful. Her account includes:
She claims Brunette “inappropriately touched” her without her consent during their time in Italy. She states she believes he sexually harassed and assaulted her while they worked together. She has denied that any physical interaction with Brunette was consensual. She has reiterated these claims during Season 3 of “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” and on social media.
The Footage Dispute
Engemann recently told Entertainment Tonight that Lisa Vanderpump is “not being truthful” about having footage of the incident. Engemann claims she sent a demand letter to an undisclosed recipient requesting the footage but was told they “did not have access to it.”
However, Vanderpump stated in a November 23, 2024 interview with Access Hollywood: “I categorically know what happened because we have cameras everywhere and I have seen every ounce of the footage. When the women are doubting her, they have got a very good reason. Any allegations against Marciano, I have the luxury of having all the footage.”
Cast Skepticism
During Season 3 of “Mormon Wives,” other cast members questioned Engemann’s story. They specifically questioned why Engemann remained in friendly contact with Brunette for months after the alleged assault, maintained communication including phone calls and texts, and appeared to have an ongoing relationship rather than avoiding him.
What Does the Production Company Allege?
Jeff Jenkins Productions has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit. Representatives for Hulu, Engemann, and Jeff Jenkins did not immediately respond to media requests for comment following the December 5, 2024 filing.
Brunette’s complaint against the production company alleges:
The company had “obvious reasons to doubt Engemann’s account, including inconsistencies, delay, and facts known to Production that undermined the claims.” Despite these red flags, the company “amplified the same accusations for profit.” The production “built major storylines” around Engemann’s sexual assault claims. The show aired the allegations “in a way designed to maximize impact” while “cutting Marciano out and denying him any meaningful opportunity to respond.”
What Is the Current Status of the Case?
Filing Date: December 5, 2024
Court: The specific court and case number have not been publicly disclosed in media reports. The lawsuit was filed the same day news outlets reported it.
Jurisdiction: Likely California state court (given the parties’ California connections and the nature of the claims), though the exact jurisdiction has not been confirmed in available public records.
Case Stage: Early procedural phase. No court dates have been scheduled. Defendants have not yet filed responses.
Public Responses:
Marciano Brunette: Posted an Instagram Reel on December 6, 2024 using trending audio about “getting even,” with the line “Somebody do something to me, I’ll do something to them. So you believe in getting even? Hell to the yeah.”
Brunette stated in a podcast interview: “The accusations she’s making against me are 100 percent false” and “I am taking this matter extremely seriously.”
Demi Engemann: Has not publicly responded to the lawsuit filing as of December 7, 2024.
Jeff Jenkins Productions/Hulu: No official statement released.
Lisa Vanderpump: Publicly defended Brunette before the lawsuit was filed, stating she reviewed all footage and knows what happened.
What Legal Challenges Does Brunette Face?
Public Figure Status
Brunette may be classified as a “limited-purpose public figure” due to his reality TV appearances. If so, he must prove “actual malice”—that Engemann and the production company knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This is a higher standard than the “negligence” standard that applies to private figures.
However, Brunette could argue he’s a private figure and the matter involves private concern, which would require only proving negligence.
Anti-SLAPP Motion Risk
California has strong Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws designed to protect free speech. Defendants could file an Anti-SLAPP motion arguing:
Engemann’s statements were made in connection with a public issue (reality TV content discussing alleged misconduct) Brunette cannot show a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim
If an Anti-SLAPP motion succeeds, the case could be dismissed early and Brunette could be ordered to pay defendants’ attorney fees.
Proving Falsity
Brunette must prove Engemann’s statements are false. This may require:
Forensic video analysis of any available footage from the Italy filming Expert testimony about consent and sexual assault Testimony from witnesses present during the encounter Evidence demonstrating the interaction was consensual
He Said/She Said Dynamic
Without clear video evidence, the case may come down to credibility determinations between Brunette’s account (consensual kiss) and Engemann’s account (unwanted touching/assault).
Damage Quantification
Brunette must prove the statements caused actual harm, including lost professional opportunities, harassment from strangers, reputational damage, and emotional distress. He will need to document specific job offers withdrawn, contracts canceled, or income lost due to the allegations.
What Are the Potential Defenses?
Truth Defense
If Engemann can prove her allegations are substantially true—that Brunette did engage in unwanted touching or sexual assault—the defamation claim fails. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation in California.
Opinion Defense
Defendants could argue some statements were protected opinions rather than false factual assertions. However, calling someone a “sexual predator” and accusing them of “sexual assault” are likely to be treated as factual statements, not protected opinions.
Privilege Defenses
California recognizes several privileges that could protect speech, though they may not apply here. Defendants are unlikely to successfully claim common interest privilege (statements made to protect a legitimate interest) or fair report privilege (reporting on official proceedings).
First Amendment Protections
Defendants may argue their speech is protected by the First Amendment, particularly if the court finds the matter involves a public controversy. However, knowingly false statements receive less First Amendment protection.
What Damages Is Brunette Seeking?
Compensatory Damages
Brunette seeks unspecified financial damages for:
Reputational harm: Damage to his professional reputation and personal standing Lost professional opportunities: Job offers, appearances, and contracts lost due to the allegations Emotional distress: Mental anguish, stress, and suffering caused by being publicly labeled a “sexual predator” Harassment: Online harassment and threats from strangers who believed the allegations
Injunctive Relief
Brunette requests a “narrowly tailored injunction” that would prohibit Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions from “repeating and republishing all of the statements that are adjudicated by this Court to be defamatory.”
This would prevent defendants from continuing to make the same allegations once a court determines they are false and defamatory.
Punitive Damages
While not explicitly mentioned in initial reports, Brunette could potentially seek punitive damages if he proves the defendants acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
What Does California Defamation Law Require?
Elements of Defamation in California
Under California Civil Code §§ 44, 45, and 46, a defamation plaintiff must prove:
False Statement of Fact: The statement must be objectively false. Opinions generally are not actionable unless based on false facts. Statements substantially true, with only minor inaccuracies, are not defamatory.
Publication to Third Party: The statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. Television broadcasts, social media posts, and interviews all constitute publication.
Fault: The level of fault depends on the plaintiff’s status:
- Private figures: Must prove defendant was negligent
- Public figures: Must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth)
- Limited-purpose public figures: Must also prove actual malice
Damages: The plaintiff must show the statement caused reputational harm.
Defamation Per Se vs. Per Quod
Defamation Per Se: Statements so inherently damaging that harm is presumed without requiring proof of actual damages. California recognizes nine categories, including accusations of committing a crime or being unfit to practice one’s profession. Calling someone a “sexual predator” and accusing them of “sexual assault” likely qualifies as defamation per se because it accuses the person of criminal conduct.
Defamation Per Quod: Statements not defamatory on their face that require extrinsic evidence to show harm. These cases require proof of “special damages”—specific financial losses.
Statute of Limitations
California provides a one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(c)). The clock typically starts when the defamatory statement is first published.
Given that Season 3 of “Mormon Wives” aired in 2024 and Brunette filed suit December 5, 2024, he filed well within the limitations period.
What Are the Implications for Reality Television?
Precedent for Content Verification
This case could establish standards for how production companies handle serious allegations made by cast members. If Brunette prevails, it may require producers to:
Conduct fact-checking before airing sexual misconduct allegations Provide accused parties with meaningful opportunities to respond Investigate available evidence (like camera footage) before broadcasting claims Avoid building storylines around unverified allegations of criminal conduct
Balancing Entertainment and Accountability
Reality TV thrives on drama and conflict. This lawsuit highlights the tension between entertainment value (sensational allegations generate ratings) and legal responsibility (false accusations destroy reputations).
The case may influence how networks and producers approach controversial content, particularly allegations of criminal behavior like sexual assault.
Impact on Cast Member Behavior
If Brunette succeeds, reality TV cast members may face greater consequences for making unverified allegations against other cast members on camera. This could lead to more careful statements or increased legal disclaimers in reality programming.
Discovery of Behind-the-Scenes Footage
The lawsuit may force production to disclose raw footage from Italy filming. If camera footage clearly shows a consensual interaction—as Lisa Vanderpump claims—it would significantly strengthen Brunette’s case. If no clear footage exists, the case becomes more challenging.
Timeline of Events
August 2024: Brunette and Engemann meet during “Vanderpump Villa” Season 2 filming in Italy. According to Brunette, they share a consensual off-camera kiss. According to Engemann, unwanted touching/sexual assault occurs.
August 2024 – Early 2025: Brunette claims Engemann maintains friendly contact with him through calls, texts, FaceTime, and location sharing for several months.
April 2025: Just before “Vanderpump Villa” footage is set to air, Brunette posts a TikTok implying he might tell Engemann’s husband “the truth.” Engemann responds by calling him a “sexual predator” and saying he “can’t keep his hands to himself.”
May 2025: Engemann gives conflicting public accounts—telling one reporter “nothing happened” while telling a podcast she was “groped” and “sexually assaulted.”
2024 (Season 3 of Mormon Wives): Hulu airs Season 3 featuring Engemann’s allegations against Brunette as a major storyline. Other cast members express skepticism about her claims. Engemann continues making accusations on social media.
November 23, 2024: Lisa Vanderpump publicly defends Brunette in an Access Hollywood interview, stating she reviewed all footage and knows “categorically what happened.”
December 5, 2024: Brunette files defamation lawsuit against Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions seeking damages and injunctive relief.
December 6, 2024: Brunette posts Instagram Reel with “getting even” themed audio, indicating he’s taking the matter seriously.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this a criminal case or civil case?
This is a civil defamation lawsuit seeking monetary damages and an injunction. Brunette is not facing any criminal charges, nor is he seeking criminal prosecution of Engemann. The lawsuit claims her statements were false and damaged his reputation, but this is resolved in civil court, not criminal court.
What would Brunette need to prove to win?
Brunette must prove: (1) Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions made false statements of fact about him, (2) these statements were published to third parties (broadcast on Hulu, posted on social media), (3) the defendants acted with at least negligence (or actual malice if he’s deemed a public figure), and (4) the statements caused measurable damage to his reputation, career, and emotional wellbeing. The “sexual predator” and “sexual assault” accusations likely qualify as defamation per se, which presumes damages.
Can the production company be held liable for airing Engemann’s statements?
Yes. Under California law, one who republishes a defamatory statement can be held liable along with the person who originally made the statement. Brunette’s complaint alleges Jeff Jenkins Productions knowingly amplified false accusations for profit despite having reasons to doubt their accuracy. If proven, the production company could share liability with Engemann.
What is an Anti-SLAPP motion and could it dismiss this case?
California’s Anti-SLAPP law protects free speech by allowing defendants to file early motions to dismiss lawsuits arising from protected speech activities. Defendants could argue Engemann’s statements were made in connection with a public issue (reality TV discussion of alleged misconduct). To survive an Anti-SLAPP motion, Brunette must show a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim by presenting evidence the statements were false and defamatory. If the motion succeeds, the case is dismissed and Brunette may have to pay defendants’ attorney fees.
Does Lisa Vanderpump’s statement about reviewing footage help Brunette’s case?
Potentially yes. Vanderpump stated she reviewed all camera footage from the villa and knows “categorically what happened.” If she testifies or provides footage showing a consensual interaction, it would support Brunette’s claim that Engemann’s allegations are false. However, Engemann disputes that such footage exists or that Vanderpump has access to it. This footage dispute may become a key battleground in discovery.
How long will this case take?
Defamation cases in California typically take 1-3 years from filing to resolution. However, if defendants file an Anti-SLAPP motion, that must be resolved first (usually within a few months). If the case survives initial motions, it will proceed through discovery (exchange of evidence), depositions, and potentially mediation before trial. Many defamation cases settle before trial once both sides assess the strength of the evidence.
What happens if Brunette wins?
If Brunette prevails, he could receive: (1) Compensatory damages for lost income, reputational harm, and emotional distress, (2) An injunction preventing Engemann and the production company from repeating the defamatory statements, and (3) Potentially punitive damages if he proves defendants acted with malice. The defendants would also likely be responsible for some or all of Brunette’s attorney fees. Importantly, a court judgment finding the statements were false and defamatory could help rehabilitate Brunette’s reputation.
What happens if Engemann wins?
If defendants prevail (either through winning on the merits or through an Anti-SLAPP dismissal), Brunette’s case would be dismissed. He would receive no damages. If dismissed via Anti-SLAPP motion, Brunette could be ordered to pay defendants’ attorney fees, which could be substantial. The allegations would remain part of the public record without a court determination that they were false.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information is based on publicly available court filings and media reports as of December 7, 2024. The case is in early stages and facts remain in dispute. If you have questions about defamation law, reality TV legal issues, or similar litigation, consult with an attorney experienced in media law and defamation.
Sources: Information compiled from court documents filed December 5, 2024, and verified news reports from TMZ, Parade, The Wrap, Lawyer Monthly, Dynamis LLP, Primetimer, SSBCrack News, Cheat Sheet, Reality Blurb, and Access Hollywood. Legal analysis based on California Civil Code §§ 44, 45, 46, California Civil Procedure Code §§ 340(c), 351, 352, and California jury instructions (CACI) on defamation law.
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