Vin Diesel Seeks Dismissal from Wrongful Termination Case as Legal Battle Heats up

on June 27, 2025

Hale then claims Freedman swung a fist at his face, stopping before he hit him -- a gesture that seems to be an attempt at intimidation. It didn't go any further than that, according to Hale ... and Jonasson's attorneys are asking the court to compel Diesel's deposition and impose monetary sanctions.

On June 20, 2025

Attorneys for the defendants filed court papers with Judge Daniel M. Crowley contending that the plaintiff’s attorneys have not established a legal exception to the legal doctrine known as the “presumption against extraterritoriality.”

The “presumption against extraterritoriality” states that courts should read a territorial limit into statutes that are ambiguous about their geographic reach. The Diesel party attorneys maintain that the events the plaintiff alleges to have occurred took place in Georgia.

“The fact that plaintiff is a California resident is immaterial to the application of the presumption against extraterritoriality as her claims arise from alleged misconduct occurring entirely outside California,” the Diesel party lawyers state in their pleadings. “Here, plaintiff worked in Georgia at all times and judicially admits she was terminated in Georgia.”

In a sworn statement, Vincent said that one of the plaintiff’s assignments while working for One Race Productions was to propose potential locations in Atlanta for a birthday party for the late “Fast Five” co-star Paul Walker, “although that party never ended up occurring.

The remaining claims in a lawsuit filed against “Fast & Furious” franchise star Vin Diesel in which a former Diesel assistant alleges the actor sexually assaulted her in an Atlanta hotel room in 2010 should be dismissed, in large part because the plaintiff is wrongfully trying to apply California law in another state, defense attorneys argue in new court papers.

The plaintiff’s Los Angeles Superior Court original suit names as defendants Diesel, his sister, Samantha Vincent and two Diesel companies — One Race Films Inc. and One Race Productions Inc. Vincent was a officer and supervisor with the firms. The new defendants are listed below.

• ABC SIGNATURE LLC DBA ABC STUDIOS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

• INTERNATIONAL FAMOUS PLAYERS RADIO PICTURE CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

• RIDLEY IV AN INDIVIDUAL JOHN IV

• THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY -A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Case Summary

In a civil suit filed on December 21st in Los Angeles Superior Court stemming from a 2010 incident in which Vin Diesel’s former assistant, Asta Jonasson alleges that Diesel forcibly groped, restrained and kissed her in a hotel suite in Atlanta and masturbated in front of her. The complaint states Diesel ignored Jonasson’s “clear statements of non-consent,” and after she “screamed and ran towards the nearby bathroom,” he “pinned her against the wall with his body."

Jonasson claims that Samantha Vincent, the president of Diesel’s company One Race at the time, called her “mere hours” after the alleged assault and “terminated Ms. Jonasson’s employment.”

“No one is too famous or powerful to evade justice,” Claire-Lise Kutlay of Greenberg Gross LLP, attorney for Jonasson, wrote in a statement. “We hope her courageous decision to come forward helps create lasting change and empowers other survivors.”

Case Information

Los Angeles County Superior Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 N Hill St, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Case No.: 23STCV31143

New Case No: 24STCV08350

Pleading: Wrongful Termination

Original Filing Date: 12/21/2023

New Filing Date: 4/3/2024

Plaintiff's Case

Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of the California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and for sexual harassment by a supervisor (Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(j)). Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Sexual Battery (Civ. Code, § 1708.5), Negligent Supervision and Retention and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages and other special and general damages according to proof, including lost earnings, salary, bonuses, and other job benefits. The plaintiff is also seeking damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, statutory damages and penalties as appropriate, including a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation of sections 98.6 and 1102.5 of the Labor Code and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action.

Damages for Emotional Distress

Emotional distress is mental anguish, mental distress, emotional suffering, or emotional pain. But the legal definition is more nuanced. Although the precise definition varies from state to state, emotional distress is a highly unpleasant emotional reaction that is specifically caused by another person. Some symptoms of emotional distress include the following:

• Anxiety and depression

• Shame, humiliation, or guilt

• Insomnia or nightmares

• Fear

• Anger

• Flashbacks

• Panic attacks

• Fatigue

• Chronic headaches

• Weight gain or loss

• Uncontrollable crying

Usually, emotional distress is a category of damages that may be recovered if you can prove a specific tort. But in some instances, you can sue for emotional distress as its own separate tort. There are two types of independent emotional distress claims, intentional infliction or negligent infliction.

The Law

AB 2777 was a bill that revives otherwise time-barred claims for damages arising from sexual assault and other inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature, as specified. This bill revives claims that could have been brought if that limitations period was afforded to claims dating back ten years from when the bill went into effect, those occurring on or after January 1, 2009. It amends the Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16 to do this.

Labor Code 

98.6.

(a) A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the employee or applicant for employment has filed a bona fide complaint or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to his or her rights that are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner, made a written or oral complaint that he or she is owed unpaid wages, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699, or has testified or is about to testify in a proceeding pursuant to that section, or because of the exercise by the employee or applicant for employment on behalf of himself, herself, or others of any rights afforded him or her...

(b) (1) Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated against, subjected to an adverse action, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his or her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the employee has made a bona fide complaint or claim to the division pursuant to this part, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699 shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by those acts of the employer.

(2) An employer who willfully refuses to hire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(3) In addition to other remedies available, an employer who violates this section is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation of this section, to be awarded to the employee or employees who suffered the violation.

Labor Code 1102.5.

(a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.

(b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.

(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.

(d) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for having exercised their rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment.

(e) A report made by an employee of a government agency to their employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b).

(f) In addition to other penalties, an employer that is a corporation or limited liability company is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this section.

(g) This section does not apply to rules, regulations, or policies that implement, or to actions by employers against employees who violate, the confidentiality of the lawyer-client privilege of Article 3 (commencing with Section 950) of, or the physician-patient privilege of Article 6 (commencing with Section 990) of, Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, or trade secret information.

(h) An employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee because the employee is a family member of a person who has, or is perceived to have, engaged in any acts protected by this section.

(i) For purposes of this section, “employer” or “a person acting on behalf of the employer” includes, but is not limited to, a client employer as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 2810.3 and an employer listed in subdivision (b) of Section 6400.

Government Code 

12940(j)

(j) The court is authorized to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of these provisions.

(j) (1) For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decision-making, or veteran or military status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment.

(2) The provisions of this subdivision are declaratory of existing law, except for the new duties imposed on employers with regard to harassment.

(3) An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee, regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

(4) (A) For purposes of this subdivision only, “employer” means any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities. The definition of “employer” in subdivision (d) of Section 12926 applies to all provisions of this section other than this subdivision.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of this subdivision, “employer” does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2.

(C) For purposes of this subdivision, “harassment” because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.

(5) For purposes of this subdivision, “a person providing services pursuant to a contract” means a person who meets all of the following criteria:

(A) The person has the right to control the performance of the contract for services and discretion as to the manner of performance.

(B) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established business.

(C) The person has control over the time and place the work is performed, supplies the tools and instruments used in the work, and performs work that requires a particular skill not ordinarily used in the course of the employer’s work.

Civil Code 

1708.5.

(a) A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following:

(1) Acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of another, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results.

(2) Acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another by use of the person’s intimate part, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results.

(3) Acts to cause an imminent apprehension of the conduct described in paragraph (1) or (2), and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results.

(4) Causes contact between a sexual organ, from which a condom has been removed, and the intimate part of another who did not verbally consent to the condom being removed.

(5) Causes contact between an intimate part of the person and a sexual organ of another from which the person removed a condom without verbal consent.

(b) A person who commits a sexual battery upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages.

(c) The court in an action pursuant to this section may award equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction, costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.

(d) For the purposes of this section:

(1) “Intimate part” means the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female.

(2) “Offensive contact” means contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.

(e) The rights and remedies provided in this section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 613, Sec. 1. (AB 453) Effective January 1, 2022.)