A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has dismissed all remaining claims in a high-profile sexual battery lawsuit filed against Hollywood star Vin Diesel by his former assistant Asta Jonasson. Judge Daniel M. Crowley ruled on November 19, 2025, that California statutes lack extraterritorial effect for conduct allegedly occurring in Georgia, effectively ending the case at the trial court level.
Jonasson’s legal team has vowed to pursue an appeal, characterizing the dismissal as a “legal technicality” rather than a judgment on the merits of the allegations themselves.
The Ten Claims Outlined in the Lawsuit
Jonasson’s December 2023 lawsuit originally contained ten distinct claims against Diesel and his production company, One Race Films. Four claims related to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, including discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment, had already been dismissed in June 2025 due to statute of limitations issues.
The November ruling addressed the six remaining claims: sexual battery, wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation.
Background on the Lawsuit Filing
Jonasson filed her lawsuit in December 2023, more than thirteen years after the alleged incident in 2010. The case was only possible due to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2022 signing of the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act, legislation designed to reopen the statute of limitations for certain sexual assault cases dating back to 2009.
Without this special window created by state law, Jonasson’s claims would have been permanently barred by traditional statute of limitations rules governing civil lawsuits.
Who Is Asta Jonasson?
Asta Jonasson was born in Singapore to a Chinese mother and Icelandic father. She holds Canadian and American citizenship and studied psychology and criminology at Simon Fraser University. After her brief employment with Diesel in 2010, Jonasson pursued a successful career as a television and film development executive, working over a decade at a major Hollywood studio.
She has contributed to Emmy-winning scripted series and Emmy-nominated documentary films, including serving as an assistant to the producer on “Five Days at Memorial.”
The Film Production Context
The alleged incident occurred during the production of “Fast Five,” the fifth installment of the “Fast & Furious” franchise. Filming took place from June 28, 2010, to October 15, 2010, with significant portions shot in Atlanta, Georgia.
The movie required an extensive cast and crew in Georgia to film warehouse interior scenes and other production elements, with the main narrative ultimately set in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Jonasson was hired by Diesel’s company as a production assistant to work on set during the Atlanta filming period.
The Alleged Incident in Detail
According to court documents, the alleged sexual assault occurred late one night in September 2010 at the St. Regis Hotel in Atlanta. Jonasson claims she was asked to wait in Diesel’s hotel suite while the actor entertained nightclub hostesses he had invited back to the hotel.
After the guests departed, Jonasson alleged that Diesel grabbed both her wrists and pulled her onto his bed. When she asked him to stop and escaped his grasp, she positioned herself by the suite door, awaiting his departure.
Escalation of the Alleged Assault
Jonasson further alleged that rather than leaving, Diesel pushed her against a wall and masturbated in front of her. The lawsuit provides specific details about the alleged physical contact and assault, claiming the incident lasted several minutes and occurred despite her verbal and physical resistance to his advances.
Jonasson stated she feared for her safety during the encounter and did not consent to any physical contact with Diesel. The alleged assault created immediate emotional distress and personal trauma.
Immediate Employment Termination
Approximately hours after the alleged hotel room incident, Jonasson received a call from Samantha Vincent, Diesel’s sister and president of One Race Films. Vincent informed Jonasson that her employment was being terminated, effective immediately, without providing an explanation for the abrupt dismissal.
Jonasson had worked as Diesel’s assistant for approximately nine days before her employment was concluded. The lawsuit contended her termination was directly retaliatory for her resistance to Diesel’s sexual advances.
Allegations of Retaliation Through Termination
The lawsuit claimed that Jonasson “was being fired because she was no longer useful – Vin Diesel had used her to fulfill his sexual desires, and she had resisted his sexual assaults.” This characterization suggested a pattern of predatory behavior and retaliation for non-compliance.
Jonasson sought damages for wrongful termination, lost wages, emotional distress, and other remedies available under California employment law. The connection between the alleged assault and immediate firing formed the basis of several related legal claims.
Vin Diesel’s Denial and Legal Response
Vin Diesel, whose real name is Mark Sinclair, categorically denied all allegations through his attorney Bryan Freedman immediately upon the lawsuit filing. Freedman stated: “Vin Diesel categorically denies this claim in its entirety.
This is the first he has ever heard about this more than 13-year-old claim made by a purported nine-day employee. There is clear evidence which completely refutes these outlandish allegations.” Diesel’s legal team maintained throughout the proceedings that the allegations were fabricated and without merit.
Judge Crowley’s Jurisdictional Ruling
Judge Daniel M. Crowley’s written dismissal order emphasized that “It is undisputed that the alleged sexual assault took place in Atlanta” and therefore occurred in Georgia, not California. The judge determined that California law “is presumed not to have extraterritorial effect unless the Legislature expressly states otherwise in adopting the statute.”
Crowley found that Jonasson’s argument that California law should apply to Georgia conduct was “untenable” and conflicted with the intention of California’s legal code.
The Statute of Limitations Complication
Four of the original ten claims were dismissed earlier based on the statute of limitations under traditional rules. However, the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act specifically created an exception allowing certain sexual assault cases to proceed despite expired limitations periods.
Judge Crowley determined that while this exception existed for California conduct, it did not extend to alleged assaults in other states, including Georgia.
Attorney Matthew Hale’s Statement
Jonasson’s attorney Matthew T. Hale responded to the November 19 dismissal by emphasizing the limited scope of the judge’s ruling: “The Court did not decide anything about the truth of Ms. Jonasson’s allegations.
The ruling was based on a legal technicality, with which we respectfully disagree.” Hale indicated the legal team was actively assessing next steps, strongly suggesting appellate action was under serious consideration immediately following the dismissal order.
The Appeal Intentions and Process
Jonasson’s legal representatives announced their intention to appeal the dismissal to California’s appellate courts. An appeal would challenge Judge Crowley’s interpretation of whether California statutes should apply to conduct occurring in another jurisdiction.
The appellate process could take several months to years, depending on court schedules and the complexity of arguments presented. The appeal represents Jonasson’s effort to reverse the dismissal and allow the case to proceed to trial.
One Race Films and Samantha Vincent
One Race Films, founded by Vin Diesel and his sister Samantha Vincent, serves as the production company behind numerous “Fast & Furious” franchise films. Samantha Vincent holds the position of producer and director within the company structure.
The production company was named as a defendant alongside Diesel and Vincent personally in the original lawsuit. Vincent’s role in terminating Jonasson’s employment shortly after the alleged assault formed a key component of the retaliation claims.
Trial Date Was Set for February 2026
Before Judge Crowley’s November dismissal, the case was scheduled to proceed to trial in February 2026. This trial date would have allowed Jonasson’s allegations to be heard by a jury, with full presentation of evidence and witness testimony from both sides.
The jurisdictional dismissal eliminated the need for trial preparation and prevented the case from reaching the merits stage. The dismissal effectively reset the litigation timeline, shifting focus to appellate proceedings.
Legal Arguments About Extraterritoriality
The core legal question centered on whether California could apply its statutes and legal protections to alleged conduct occurring outside its borders.
Judge Crowley’s analysis referenced the long-standing legal principle that state laws presumptively have no effect beyond state boundaries unless explicitly stated in the statute. This principle of extraterritoriality limitations is fundamental to federalism and state sovereignty in the American legal system.
The Path Forward for Jonasson
Jonasson’s legal team must now prepare appellate briefs arguing that the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act, despite not explicitly stating extraterritorial application, was intended to reach conduct occurring during employment relationships with California-based companies and entities.
The appeal will likely focus on legislative intent, the purpose behind reopening statute of limitations, and whether jurisdictional rules should yield to public policy concerns about sexual assault accountability and workplace protection.
Broader Implications for Sexual Assault Claims
The dismissal raises important questions about jurisdictional limitations in sexual assault litigation, particularly regarding mobile film productions where incidents occur across state lines.
Hollywood film crews often work in multiple states, although they may be based in California. The case highlights tension between traditional jurisdictional principles and modern efforts to extend sexual assault protections through legislation like the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act.