A Manhattan Supreme Court judge has rejected Warner Bros.’ bid to escape a lawsuit accusing Russell Brand of sexually assaulting a film extra on the set of the 2010 comedy Arthur, ruling that the studio must now face trial or negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff. Judge Adam Silvera found that a jury could reasonably conclude the type of injury alleged was foreseeable given what records existed about Brand at the time, according to the New York Post.
The anonymous extra sued Brand and the film studio in 2023, alleging that Brand appeared drunk on the Arthur set and exposed himself in front of the cast and crew, as the New York Post reports. The same lawsuit, filed under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, alleges that Brand later followed her into a bathroom and assaulted her while a crew member guarded the door from outside, according to NPR. The Adult Survivors Act gave accusers a one-year window to sue over alleged non-recent sexual abuse, as The Guardian reported when the suit was filed.
According to the Post, the woman’s complaint further alleges that Brand blocked her from leaving the bathroom, repeatedly demanded she kiss his penis, and forced her head onto it. Warner Bros. and the other corporate defendants had argued they had no prior notice of Brand’s behavior and received no complaints from the movie set, the Post notes. Judge Silvera disagreed that this was enough to end the case before trial.
Judge Says Jury Must Weigh What Warner Bros. Knew
Silvera found that a jury could determine the type of injury alleged by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable based on records available about Brand in 2010, per the Post’s account of the ruling. The judge said whether the corporate defendants had constructive knowledge of Brand’s alleged propensities is a factual question for a jury to resolve, not one a judge can settle on paperwork alone. He added that it also remains a factual question whether those same corporate defendants could have intervened to stop the alleged assault, according to the Post.
Attorney Nathan Werksman, representing the plaintiff, said Warner Bros. should not be able to avoid liability by claiming it knew nothing when it hired Brand, the Post reports. The accuser’s legal team hailed the ruling as a step toward holding both Warner Bros. and Brand accountable and toward what they described as long-delayed justice, per the same report.
Outtake Footage and a Prior Bid to Delay the Case
The fight over what the studio knew echoes an earlier skirmish in the case over physical evidence from the Arthur set. A Warner Bros. attorney, Patrick Lamparello, previously said the studio had roughly four to eight hours of outtake footage from the film, according to Rolling Stone. Warner Bros. offered to submit that previously unseen footage as evidence in the case, the outlet reported.
Brand had also sought to delay the New York civil case, citing overlap with a separate criminal matter in the United Kingdom, but that request was rejected by Judge Shlomo Hagler, according to a 2025 report from Variety. Variety also reported that both Brand and Warner Bros. have denied the allegations at the heart of the civil case.
Appeal Plans Unclear as UK Jury Deliberates
Whether Warner Bros. plans to appeal the New York decision remains unclear, the Post reports. Representatives for both Warner Bros. and Brand did not respond to the Post’s request for comment on the ruling.
The civil ruling lands as Brand, a British comedian and actor, faces a separate rape trial in the United Kingdom. Jurors in that UK case have been deliberating since Tuesday before the Post’s report on the New York ruling, according to the outlet.
