Former “Vanderpump Rules” co-stars Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval have responded to former co-star Rachel Leviss, denying her accusations that they distributed sexually explicit videos without her consent.
Last week, Madix and Sandoval filed separate responses in Los Angeles County Superior Court to Leviss' February lawsuit, which accuses the former romantic partners of eavesdropping, revenge porn, invasion of privacy and “intentionally inflicting emotional distress.” The 29-year-old reality TV star's complaint stems from the tabloid scandal, known to Bravo fans as “Scandoval,” which revealed that she had been sleeping with Sandoval, Madix's longtime boyfriend.
Madix, 38, filed a statement Friday asking the court to dismiss Leviss' lawsuit, citing California's anti-SLAPP law, which protects against frivolous lawsuits. The reality TV personality-turned-Broadway star's statement countered Leviss' claims that Madix had obtained and distributed at least two sexually explicit videos of Leviss without her knowledge or consent. Leviss claimed in her February complaint that her co-star had informed the “Vanderpump” cast and crew about the videos.
“I didn't send the videos to anyone else. I also did not share, display or show the videos to anyone else,” Madix said, according to legal documents. “To be clear, I only watched the video of plaintiff masturbating in places away from others.”
Madix said in his statement that he was in a locked bathroom when he discovered explicit FaceTime videos of Leviss on Sandoval's phone. “I quickly pulled out my phone and made two recordings of the FaceTime video,” he said.
She also said she confronted Sandoval later about the videos in an alley near the West Hollywood venue where her cover band was performing, and that her ex-boyfriend “forcibly took the phone out of my hands” and deleted the videos from her phone. . However, before deleting the videos, Madix shared them with Leviss, with the caption reading “you're dead to me.”
The statement added that Madix had informed friends and family about Sandoval's affair, and included screenshots of text message exchanges between Madix and Leviss and between Madix and a friend about Madix's discovery of the affair.
Attorney Margo Arnold and Joseph Greenfield, vice president and chief forensic examiner at digital forensic investigations firm Maryman, also filed statements in support of Madix's motion to quash Leviss' complaint.
In a statement shared with The Times on Tuesday, Leviss' attorneys, Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman, criticized Madix's motion and “her fairy-tale account of how she discovered the relationship from Tom's phone.”
The statement added: “In the meantime, we hope to question her about her statement, as we have irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed. Finally, the forensic 'expert' claims that the video is not 'NOW' on his phone, long after the events in question and with months of notice that his actions had put her in legal jeopardy.”
Days before Madix entered his plea, Sandoval, 40, filed his response: a motion to dismiss parts of Leviss' lawsuit.
“Leviss' lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt to spread her fame and rebrand herself as the victim rather than the other woman while denigrating her former friend Madix as a 'scorned woman' and her ex-lover Sandoval as a 'predator.' ”TomTom said. He said the motion of the co-founder of Restaurant & Bar.
At the center of Sandoval's response, filed April 22, are Leviss's alleged “dubious and supported causes of action” against Sandoval. In February, Leviss alleged that Sandoval had recorded sexually explicit clips of his co-star without his knowledge or consent.
Sandoval's motion counters the allegations, alleging that “these videos were created by Leviss and posted by Leviss to Sandoval via a consensual exchange on Facetime, i.e., 'his video calls.'”
The court documents continued: “Based on Leviss' own accusations, Sandoval simply kept private copies of the videos that Leviss had filmed and shared with him.”
Citing “deficient allegations” in the February lawsuit, Sandoval said Leviss' causes of action “fail and require dismissal or amendment.” He requested that the court grant his motion against Leviss' claim in its entirety and dismiss his request for special compensatory damages.
“The allegations in support of this cause of action are conclusive and lack sufficient facts to prove [Sandoval’s] conduct as intentional, deliberate or fraudulent, much less despicable,” the statement says.
In their statement to the Times, Leviss' attorneys responded to Sandoval's statement.
“Sandoval's response to irrefutable evidence that will be presented in court is worrying,” they said. “Leveraging such claims to garner media attention and perpetuate victim-blaming is not only deplorable but actionable.”
