Ariana Madix has filed an “anti-SLAPP” movement to dismiss Rachel Leviss‘ revenge porn lawsuit towards her and her ex, Tom Sandoval.
In line with authorized paperwork obtained by ET, the 38-year-old former bartender is asking a Los Angeles courtroom to throw out the February go well with that Leviss, 29, filed by which she accused Sandoval, 40, and Madix of making revenge porn, eavesdropping, intentional infliction of emotional misery and invasion of privateness.
Of their new submitting, Madix’s authorized group calls Leviss’ case an instance of a “SLAPP” go well with — a Strategic Lawsuit Towards Public Participation — and asks that each one three of the claims filed towards their consumer — revenge porn creation, infliction of emotional misery and invasion of privateness — be dismissed. They’re additionally asking that per the anti-SLAPP statute in California — the state the place the case is predicated — Madix’s attorneys’ charges be paid by Leviss, saying that her go well with is “an abuse of the authorized course of.”
A SLAPP lawsuit is outlined as authorized motion taken by one occasion that’s supposed to “dissuade their critics from persevering with to supply unfavorable publicity. By definition, SLAPP fits would not have any true authorized claims towards the critics,” based on the Cornell Legislation Faculty. Madix claims that Leviss, via her lawsuit, “doesn’t search to vindicate any cognizable rights however to punish” and to discourage her and others from “exercising their constitutionally protected proper of free speech.”
Opposite to claims that Leviss and her group have made relating to the character of her affair with Sandoval coming to gentle and Madix’s information of mentioned affair, Madix’s legal professionals — Jordan Susman and Margo Arnold — declare she was at midnight fully with regard to the affair between her then-partner and their Vanderpump Guidelines co-star.
“Ms. Madix didn’t know in regards to the affair. However on March 1, 2023, Ms. Madix discovered about it within the worst doable approach: by discovering a video on Mr. Sandoval’s cellphone of Plaintiff and Mr. Sandoval having cellphone intercourse,” Madix’s authorized counsel alleges.
Madix’s movement to debate claims that whereas she was “devastated” upon making the invention and did inform her buddies and colleagues to the state of affairs, she didn’t take part in any criminal activity surrounding express images, movies or proof of the affair between Sandoval and Leviss. that whereas she was “devastated” upon making the invention and did inform her buddies and colleagues to the state of affairs, she didn’t take part in any criminal activity surrounding express images, movies or proof of the affair between Sandoval and Leviss.
“One factor Ms. Madix didn’t do was share or present any of the video footage she discovered on Mr. Sandoval’s cellphone with anybody however Plaintiff. Actually, Ms. Madix couldn’t have shared such footage as a result of Mr. Sandoval deleted it from her cellphone inside minutes of Ms. Madix confronting him—a truth Ms. Madix said in writing 33 minutes after sending the movies to Plaintiff,” Susman and Arnold declare within the authorized movement.
The courtroom has but to rule on Madix’s movement to strike. The subsequent courtroom date is scheduled for July 11.
Madix’s submitting comes shortly after Sandoval’s personal authorized group claimed that Leviss is trying to color Madix as a “scorned lady” and the TomTom proprietor as “predatory.” In response, Sandoval additionally alleged that Leviss’ podcast, Rachel Goes Rogue, is a strategic transfer to govern the narrative.
As for Leviss’ claims that Sandoval filmed their intimate FaceTime calls by which she appeared “in a state of undress and masturbating” with out her consent, Sandoval’s attorneys argue that mentioned movies have been allegedly created and shared consensually and that Sandoval merely saved non-public copies of the movies.
Sandoval can be requesting Leviss’ lawsuit both be dismissed or amended.
Leviss’ legal professionals, Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman, reacted to Sandoval’s response, writing, “Sandoval’s response within the face of irrefutable proof that will likely be introduced in courtroom is disturbing. Leveraging such claims for media consideration and perpetuating victim-blaming isn’t just deplorable however actionable.”
Vanderpump Guidelines airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m. ET on Bravo.
RELATED CONTENT: