“Vanderpump Guidelines” exes Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval fired again at former co-star Rachel Leviss, denying her allegations that they distributed sexually specific movies with out her consent.
Final week, Madix and Sandoval filed separate responses in Los Angeles County Superior Court docket to Leviss’ February lawsuit, which accuses the previous romantic companions of eavesdropping, revenge porn, invasion of privateness and “intentional infliction of emotional misery.” The 29-year-old actuality TV star’s grievance stems from the tabloid scandal — recognized amongst Bravo followers as “Scandoval” — that exposed she had been sleeping with Sandoval, Madix’s longtime boyfriend.
A authorized consultant for Leviss (previously “Raquel Leviss”) didn’t instantly reply Monday to The Occasions’ request for remark.
Madix, 38, filed a declaration on Friday requesting that the court docket strike Leviss’ grievance, citing California’s anti-SLAPP regulation, which protects towards frivolous lawsuits. The truth TV persona turned Broadway star‘s declaration countered Leviss’ claims that Madix had obtained and distributed no less than two sexually specific movies of Leviss with out her data or consent. Leviss claimed in her February grievance that her co-star had knowledgeable the “Vanderpump” forged and manufacturing staff concerning the movies.
“I didn’t ship the movies to anybody else. Nor did I share, show, or present the movies to anybody else,” Madix stated, based on authorized paperwork. “To be clear, I solely noticed the video of Plaintiff masturbating in locations secluded from others.”
Madix stated in her declaration that she was in a locked lavatory stall when she found specific FaceTime movies of Leviss on Sandoval’s cellphone. “I hurriedly took out my very own cellphone and made two recordings of the FaceTime video,” she stated.
She additionally stated she confronted Sandoval later concerning the movies in an alley close to the West Hollywood venue the place his cowl band was performing, and that her ex-boyfriend “forcibly grabbed my cellphone from my fingers” and deleted the movies from her cellphone. Nevertheless, earlier than he deleted the movies, Madix shared them with Leviss, with the textual content studying, “you’re useless to me.”
The declaration added that Madix had knowledgeable family and friends about Sandoval’s affair, and included screenshots of textual content message exchanges between Madix and Leviss and between Madix and a buddy about Madix’s discovery of the affair.
Lawyer Margo Arnold and Joseph Greenfield, vp and chief forensic examiner with digital forensics investigations agency Maryman, additionally filed declarations in assist of Madix’s movement to strike Leviss’ grievance.
Days earlier than Madix filed her declaration, Sandoval, 40, filed his response: a movement to strike parts of Leviss’ lawsuit.
“Leviss’ lawsuit is a thinly veiled try to increase her fame and to rebrand herself because the sufferer as an alternative of the opposite girl whereas denigrating her former buddy Madix as a ‘scorned girl’ and her former paramour Sandoval as ‘predatory,’” the TomTom Restaurant & Bar co-founder’s movement stated.
On the core of Sandoval’s response, filed April 22, are Leviss’ alleged “doubtful and supported causes of motion” towards Sandoval. In February, Leviss alleged that Sandoval had recorded sexually specific clips of his co-star with out her data or consent.
Sandoval’s movement counters the accusations, alleging that “these movies have been created by Leviss and printed by Leviss to Sandoval by way of a consensual alternate on Facetime, i.e., ‘their video calls.’”
The court docket paperwork continued: “Primarily based on Leviss’ personal allegations, Sandoval merely saved personal copies of the movies that Leviss had filmed and shared with him.”
Citing “poor allegations” within the February lawsuit, Sandoval stated Leviss’ causes of motion “fail and require both dismissal or modification.” He requested that the court docket grant his movement towards Leviss’ go well with in its entirety and strike her request for particular compensatory damages.
“The allegations in assist of this reason for motion are conclusory and devoid of adequate information to proof [Sandoval’s] conduct as being intentional, willful or fradulent, not to mention despicable,” the declaration says.
In an announcement shared with Individuals final week, Leviss’ attorneys Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman fired again at Sandoval’s declaration.
“Sandoval’s response within the face of irrefutable proof that shall be offered in court docket is disturbing,” they stated. “Leveraging such claims for media consideration and perpetuating victim-blaming is not only deplorable however actionable.”