Demi and Marciano Defamation Lawsuit: Anti-SLAPP Motion and Defense

The defamation lawsuit between Demi Engemann and Marciano Brunette is an active federal case in Utah, filed by Brunette in December 2025 against Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions over her public accusation that he sexually assaulted her during a 2024 reality-TV crossover shoot. Brunette says the encounter was a consensual kiss and that Engemann’s later accusations, amplified by the production company on Hulu’s The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, defamed him. Both defendants have asked the court to end the case before it reaches discovery, and rulings are pending.¹

What Happened in Italy

In August 2024, cast members from The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives visited the Italian set of Vanderpump Villa for a crossover episode. Brunette, a lead server on Vanderpump Villa, says he and Engemann flirted, spoke privately, and shared a consensual kiss.²

Engemann’s account is different. She has said Brunette groped her without her consent and has publicly called him a “sexual predator.”³ In one social media exchange, she wrote that Brunette had grabbed her “privates” and stated, “unwanted physical touch = assault. PERIOD.” Brunette has denied any contact, telling reporters, “I never touched her, ever.”⁴

How the Accusations Went Public

Engemann’s allegations surfaced around May 2025, roughly as Vanderpump Villa season two began airing. She described “unwanted touch” across social media and in press interviews, later framing it as sexual assault.⁵ At the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives season three reunion in December 2025, she addressed skepticism from castmates: “It’s more painful to not be believed … or to have to go over it over and over and over and feel the pain of past things than to just say ‘F*ck yeah, we kissed.'”⁶ Her husband, Bret Engemann, defended her at the reunion, saying she was “not flirty at all” and that the cast’s initial disbelief was a “knee-jerk” mistake.⁷

What Brunette’s Lawsuit Claims

Brunette filed suit on December 5, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, naming Engemann and Jeff Jenkins Productions.¹ Against Engemann, the complaint asserts six causes of action: defamation, defamation per se, defamation by implication, false light, tortious interference, and business disparagement. Against Jeff Jenkins Productions, it asserts the first four.⁸

The complaint’s core theory is that the Italy encounter was consensual and that Engemann’s conduct afterward proves it. Brunette’s lawyers describe months of friendly, ongoing contact she initiated after August 2024: more than a hundred pages of text messages, frequent phone calls and FaceTime sessions (one involving her daughter), shared phone location data as late as March 2025, and invitations to social events. The suit alleges Engemann shifted to accusing him of sexual misconduct around April 2025, shortly before Vanderpump Villa season two aired, and that her language escalated from “misconduct” to “sexual assault” to “sexual predator.”⁸²

Against Jeff Jenkins Productions, the complaint alleges the company built a major season-three storyline around Engemann’s allegations and republished them despite having access to contradictory evidence. According to the filing, producers cut Brunette out of the narrative without giving him a meaningful chance to respond, even though castmates on camera expressed doubt about Engemann’s account and one allegedly said she was lying.⁸ Brunette seeks monetary damages, attorney fees, and a narrowly tailored injunction barring repetition of statements found to be defamatory.⁵

Engemann’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

On February 17, 2026, Engemann’s legal team, led by Roger N. Behle Jr. of Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, filed a motion to dismiss under Utah’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute.⁹ The law, effective May 2023, gives defendants sued over speech on matters of public concern an early procedural exit. Filing the motion stays proceedings, including discovery, unless the court permits limited discovery. The court must hold a hearing within 60 days and rule within 60 days after that. A successful motion carries an award of costs, attorney fees, and expenses.¹⁰

The motion makes three main arguments. It contends Engemann’s statements about “unwanted touch” are constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public interest, because both parties are public figures whose interaction played out on nationally televised reality shows.¹¹ It argues her claims are not legally actionable because they reflect “subjective views and interpretations” rather than provably false statements of fact.⁹ And it argues that as a public-figure plaintiff, Brunette must prove “actual malice”—that Engemann knew her statements were false or made them with reckless disregard for the truth.

The filing calls the lawsuit “a sham” brought “solely to gain media attention” because of Brunette’s “failure-to-launch TV career” and his desire to “punish Engemann” for speaking out. It also describes the case as “a lesson in hypocrisy,” alleging Brunette has previously boasted publicly about his own sexual history. Behle said in a public statement: “We will litigate this case fully before the court. The case raises some serious issues. Women cannot fear being sued for reporting sexual misconduct. A suit like this could have the effect of deterring victims of sexual misconduct from coming forward. That simply cannot happen.”¹¹

To survive the motion, Brunette must establish a prima facie case for his defamation claims. Combined with the actual-malice standard that may apply if the court treats both parties as public figures, that creates a high bar to clear before discovery is available.

The Producers’ Defense

Jeff Jenkins Productions, the company behind both The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives and Vanderpump Villa, moved just as aggressively to end the case. On the same day Engemann filed her motion, the company filed an answer along with a motion for summary judgment, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a motion for attorney fees.¹

Its central argument is that a performer agreement Brunette signed bars him from suing over his appearance on the show. A spokesperson said: “No one held [a gun to] his head … No one forced him to sign the Participant Release. Indeed, no one forced him to participate at all.”¹² The company also submitted eight video files on a USB flash drive as exhibits to its summary judgment motion; the contents have not been publicly disclosed.¹ Brunette has opposed summary judgment, arguing he should be granted access to unaired footage and internal production communications before the court rules.¹³

The Performer Agreement Fight

The performer agreement Brunette signed in February 2025 for his appearance on The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives sits at the heart of both defense strategies. Engemann’s team cites language stating that Brunette voluntarily participated “with full knowledge, appreciation and understanding of the personal risks involved,” including that “personal, private, surprising, embarrassing and/or unfavorable” information might be disclosed, potentially exposing him to “public ridicule, humiliation, or condemnation.”¹⁴ Jeff Jenkins Productions treats the same document as a valid, enforceable release of claims tied to his appearance.

Brunette disputes that the agreement is enforceable, contending he was led to believe he was signing a payment-related document rather than a liability release. Details of that argument sit in sealed filings, but his position is that the alleged deception voids the release.¹²

Where the Case Stands

The case (No. 2:25-cv-01102-DAO) is before District Judge Tena Campbell in the District of Utah, with Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg also assigned. Engemann’s motion to dismiss and Jeff Jenkins Productions’ motion for summary judgment are both pending.¹ A motion hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2026.¹⁵ The court has notified the parties of the availability of a judicial settlement conference, but there is no public indication that settlement talks have begun.

Brunette is represented by Dynamis LLP, with Eric Rosen as lead counsel, and local Utah co-counsel from Parkinson Benson & Potter. Engemann is represented by Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, with Roger N. Behle Jr. and Julianne P. Blanch as lead attorneys.¹⁶ How the court rules on the anti-SLAPP motion will likely determine the case’s trajectory: a grant could end the lawsuit and shift attorney fees to Brunette, while a denial would open the door to discovery over the unaired footage and internal communications both sides have referenced.

1
CourtListener. Brunette v. Engemann
2
Grazia Daily. Marciano Brunette, Demi Engemann, Jeff Jenkins Lawsuit Explained
3
E! Online. Marciano Brunette Sues Demi Engemann of Secret Lives of Mormon Wives
4
Yahoo Entertainment. Drama Between Vanderpump Villa Star and Mormon Wives Cast
5
Northeastern University News. Mormon Wives Lawsuit
6
Mother Jones. Mormon Wives Sexual Assault Controversy
7
AOL. Breaking Down the Drama Between Mormon Wives and Vanderpump Villa
8
Dynamis LLP. Marciano Brunette Sues Demi Engemann
9
USA Today. Demi Engemann Files To Dismiss Marciano Brunette Defamation Lawsuit
10
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Anti-SLAPP Guide – Utah
11
People. Demi Engemann Files Motion To Dismiss Marciano Brunette Defamation Lawsuit
12
Yahoo Entertainment. SLOMW Producers Want Marciano Brunette Lawsuit Dismissed
13
Yahoo Entertainment. Vanderpump Villa’s Marciano Making Moves in Lawsuit
14
AOL. Demi Engemann Files Motion To Dismiss
15
UniCourt. Brunette v. Engemann Case Summary
16
CourtListener. Brunette v. Engemann – Parties