N※N

Engemann Files Motion to Dismiss Brunette's Defamation Suit

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. otion-to-dismiss-brunette-s-defamation-suit.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Wednesday, February 18th 2026 at 18:28 GMT by People
      Locales: California, New York, UNITED STATES

Los Angeles, CA - February 18th, 2026 - The legal battle between social media influencer Demi Engemann and restaurateur Marciano Brunette has taken a sharp turn, with Engemann filing a robust motion to dismiss Brunette's defamation lawsuit. The move, signaling a firm defense against what Engemann's legal team characterizes as a "frivolous" and "harassing" claim, suggests the case is poised for a potentially lengthy and contentious legal process.

Brunette initially filed the defamation suit alleging that Engemann had made false and damaging statements about him online. While the specific nature of those statements remains under court seal - a tactic frequently employed to manage public perception and protect ongoing investigations - sources close to the case indicate they pertain to allegations regarding the operational practices and business ethics of Brunette's popular restaurant group, 'Bella Notte.'

Engemann's motion, obtained by this publication, centers on two primary arguments. Firstly, the legal team asserts that Brunette, due to his public profile, is subject to a higher legal threshold for proving defamation. This refers to the established legal principle that public figures must demonstrate "actual malice" - meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity - in order to win a defamation case. Simply proving a statement is false is insufficient; Brunette must also prove intent or egregious negligence on Engemann's part.

"The law recognizes a distinction between statements made about private citizens and those concerning public figures," explains legal analyst Eleanor Vance, specializing in media law. "Public figures have willingly entered the public arena and, as such, invite a greater degree of scrutiny. Protecting open debate and robust discussion requires a higher burden of proof to prevent chilling effects on free speech."

The motion further contends that Brunette has failed to demonstrate any actual damages resulting from Engemann's alleged defamatory statements. This is a crucial component of any defamation claim. Brunette would need to prove, with quantifiable evidence, that Engemann's statements caused him financial loss, reputational harm, or other concrete damages. Anecdotal evidence or subjective feelings of distress are generally insufficient. Sources suggest Brunette's team has attempted to link a recent, minor dip in reservations at one of his restaurants to Engemann's online activity, but Engemann's lawyers are reportedly preparing to challenge the validity of this correlation, citing seasonal fluctuations and broader economic trends.

"The argument of 'actual harm' is often the sticking point in these cases," says Robert Sterling, a defamation attorney not involved in this litigation. "It's not enough to claim your reputation is tarnished; you need to show concrete financial or professional consequences directly linked to the defamatory statement."

The filing doesn't shy away from direct accusations, describing the lawsuit as a "transparent attempt to harass and intimidate Ms. Engemann" and demanding its dismissal "with prejudice" - meaning Brunette would be barred from refiling the same claim in the future.

This case arrives at a time of increasing scrutiny of online speech and the legal boundaries of defamation. Social media influencers, with their vast reach and powerful platforms, are increasingly becoming targets of defamation lawsuits. The implications of this case could set a precedent for future legal battles involving online personalities and their statements. The question of whether online opinions, even critical ones, can constitute defamation is a rapidly evolving area of law.

Brunette's lawyer, contacted for comment, stated they were "reviewing the motion and preparing a comprehensive response" but declined to provide further details. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for March 10th, 2026, and is expected to draw significant media attention. The outcome of that hearing will likely determine the future trajectory of this high-profile legal dispute.