“Vanderpump Rules” exes Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval fired back at previous co-star Rachel Leviss, denying her allegations that they dispersed sexually explicit video clips without the need of her consent.
Very last 7 days, Madix and Sandoval filed separate responses in Los Angeles County Superior Court to Leviss’ February lawsuit, which accuses the former passionate associates of eavesdropping, revenge porn, invasion of privateness and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The 29-yr-previous fact Tv star’s criticism stems from the tabloid scandal — acknowledged among the Bravo supporters as “Scandoval” — that revealed she experienced been sleeping with Sandoval, Madix’s longtime boyfriend.
A legal agent for Leviss (formerly “Raquel Leviss”) did not straight away reply Monday to The Times’ ask for for comment.
Madix, 38, submitted a declaration on Friday requesting that the courtroom strike Leviss’ grievance, citing California’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects from frivolous lawsuits. The fact Television set character turned Broadway star‘s declaration countered Leviss’ promises that Madix experienced obtained and dispersed at minimum two sexually express video clips of Leviss without the need of her awareness or consent. Leviss claimed in her February criticism that her co-star had knowledgeable the “Vanderpump” cast and production crew about the films.
“I did not send out the videos to any one else. Nor did I share, display screen, or demonstrate the videos to any individual else,” Madix said, according to legal files. “To be apparent, I only observed the online video of Plaintiff masturbating in destinations secluded from some others.”
Madix said in her declaration that she was in a locked lavatory stall when she identified specific FaceTime films of Leviss on Sandoval’s telephone. “I hurriedly took out my individual mobile phone and designed two recordings of the FaceTime online video,” she mentioned.
She also explained she confronted Sandoval later about the films in an alley in the vicinity of the West Hollywood location in which his protect band was undertaking, and that her ex-boyfriend “forcibly grabbed my cellular phone from my hands” and deleted the movies from her phone. Nevertheless, ahead of he deleted the movies, Madix shared them with Leviss, with the textual content looking through, “you’re lifeless to me.”
The declaration included that Madix experienced informed mates and household about Sandoval’s affair, and integrated screenshots of textual content concept exchanges among Madix and Leviss and amongst Madix and a close friend about Madix’s discovery of the affair.
Legal professional Margo Arnold and Joseph Greenfield, vice president and chief forensic examiner with electronic forensics investigations company Maryman, also filed declarations in assistance of Madix’s motion to strike Leviss’ criticism.
Days before Madix submitted her declaration, Sandoval, 40, submitted his response: a motion to strike parts of Leviss’ lawsuit.
“Leviss’ lawsuit is a thinly veiled endeavor to prolong her fame and to rebrand herself as the sufferer as an alternative of the other lady while denigrating her former good friend Madix as a ‘scorned woman’ and her previous paramour Sandoval as ‘predatory,’” the TomTom Cafe & Bar co-founder’s motion explained.
At the core of Sandoval’s reaction, submitted April 22, are Leviss’ alleged “dubious and supported leads to of action” from Sandoval. In February, Leviss alleged that Sandoval experienced recorded sexually specific clips of his co-star without her expertise or consent.
Sandoval’s motion counters the accusations, alleging that “these films had been developed by Leviss and published by Leviss to Sandoval by using a consensual exchange on Facetime, i.e., ‘their online video calls.’”
The court docket files ongoing: “Based on Leviss’ individual allegations, Sandoval basically saved personal copies of the films that Leviss experienced filmed and shared with him.”
Citing “deficient allegations” in the February lawsuit, Sandoval explained Leviss’ brings about of action “fail and involve both dismissal or amendment.” He requested that the court docket grant his movement versus Leviss’ fit in its entirety and strike her ask for for exclusive compensatory damages.
“The allegations in assist of this cause of action are conclusory and devoid of ample info to evidence [Sandoval’s] perform as being intentional, willful or fradulent, permit alone despicable,” the declaration suggests.
In a statement shared with Folks very last 7 days, Leviss’ lawyers Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman fired again at Sandoval’s declaration.
“Sandoval’s reaction in the face of irrefutable proof that will be offered in court is disturbing,” they explained. “Leveraging this kind of claims for media interest and perpetuating target-blaming is not just deplorable but actionable.”
