A California judge has ended the sexual battery, retaliation, and wrongful termination lawsuit that was filed against actor Vin Diesel two years ago by a former personal assistant.

In a summary judgment ruling handed down Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley agreed with Diesel and his lawyers that the six remaining claims in plaintiff Asta Jonasson’s lawsuit were not viable in California. The judge said it was undisputed that Jonasson was working for Diesel in Georgia during production of his Fast Five movie in September 2010 when the alleged assault occurred.

“Plaintiff’s causes of action impermissibly apply California law to extraterritorial conduct in the State of Georgia. California authorities make clear that California law cannot be applied to any of plaintiff’s claims,” the judge wrote.

Jonasson’s lawyer, Matthew Hale, tells Rolling Stone his client is “assessing next steps,” which could include an appeal. “The court did not decide anything about the truth of Ms. Jonasson’s allegations. The ruling was based on a legal technicality,” Hale, a partner at Greenberg Gross LLP, says. “We disagree with the ruling.”

Diesel’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, praised the ruling. “We are grateful that the court put an end to this meritless lawsuit. We are pleased that this matter has been resolved entirely,” Freedman said in a statement.

In his lengthy ruling, Judge Crowley said all six claims that remained in Jonasson’s lawsuit were beyond their various statutes of limitations, and he didn’t find them revivable under AB 2777, the California law that reopened the filing window for certain sexual assault claims previously barred by filing deadlines.

“Nothing in the language of [the new law] specifies the statute’s intended geographic scope,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “[It] does not include any ‘affirmative indication’ that it was intended to apply to conduct outside of California.”

Hale tried to convince the judge to keep the case alive at a Nov. 4 hearing on the summary judgment motion. Hale said Jonasson’s claims had a “laundry list of connections” to California. Both Jonasson and Diesel are California residents, he said, and Jonasson was hired by Diesel’s California-based company, One Race Productions, after she was interviewed in its Los Angeles office.

“She expected to return to California to continue working,” Hale argued. “California has a great interest in making sure its residents aren’t simply shipped off to another state for a temporary part of their permanent position to be sexually assaulted and then returned thereafter. That would be an inappropriate way to interpret California law.”

Diesel’s other lawyer, Sean Hardy, argued that the lawsuit hinged on the alleged sexual assault, so the rules of California’s extraterritorial penal code provided the model the court should follow. “Assuming the facts as alleged, it would be a purely out-of-state crime,” he told the court. “If Ms. Jonasson went to the Los Angeles District Attorney today and filed a criminal complaint, they would refer it to Georgia. They would have no jurisdiction over it.”

Hardy argued the “extraterritorial” nature of the alleged assault barred Jonasson from using it as a basis to bring her lawsuit under AB 2777. Plaintiffs need a viable, California-based sexual assault claim to pursue such a lawsuit, and Jonasson didn’t meet that precondition, he argued.

While the court issued a lengthy tentative order ahead of the hearing two weeks ago that sided with Diesel, Judge Crowley declined to adopt the tentative from the bench on Nov. 4. Instead, he told both sides he wanted to do a “deeper dive” on Hale’s argument that he had the power to override Georgia’s statute of limitations if he found California had a “compelling interest” in applying its own statute of limitations. He ultimately stuck with the tentative.

In her 2023 lawsuit, Jonasson alleged she arrived in Atlanta to begin her new job and quickly got to work organizing parties and catering for Diesel. She claimed the actor demanded that she stay “in close physical proximity” to him at parties to “provide him with cover if he was photographed with another woman” who wasn’t his long-time girlfriend.

Describing the alleged assault, Jonasson said that one night after a party in a hotel suite, Diesel “forcibly grabbed” her, “groped her breasts, and kissed her.” When she struggled to break free, Diesel overpowered her, she said. According to the lawsuit, Diesel “dropped to his knees and pushed Ms. Jonasson’s dress up, groped her legs, and attempted to pull down Ms. Jonasson’s underwear.” Jonasson said Diesel then placed her hands on his erect penis and proceeded to expose himself and masturbate while she was “pinned” to the wall. Jonasson claimed the production company fired her the next day in retaliation for resisting Diesel’s advances.

At the time the suit was filed, Diesel’s other lawyer, Bryan Freedman, said the actor “categorically denies” Jonasson’s claims. “This is the first he has ever heard about this more than 13-year-old claim made by a purportedly nine-day employee. There is clear evidence which completely refutes these outlandish allegations,” Freedman said. (Rolling Stone reached out to lawyers on both sides again Wednesday but did not receive an immediate response.)

In a prior ruling, Judge Crowley dismissed four of the 10 claims in Jonasson’s original lawsuit, including her claim that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The judge said the claims, brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), had expired because she missed the one-year window to first file a complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department.