Madix and Sandoval filed separate responses in Los Angeles to Leviss' February lawsuit.
LOS ANGELES — “Vanderpump Rules” exes Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval fired back at former co-star Rachel Leviss, denying her allegations 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 “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The 29-year-old reality TV star’s complaint stems from the tabloid scandal — known among Bravo fans as “Scandoval” — that revealed she had been sleeping with Sandoval, Madix’s longtime boyfriend.
Madix, 38, filed a declaration on Friday requesting that the court strike Leviss’ complaint, citing California’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects against frivolous lawsuits. The reality TV personality turned Broadway star‘s declaration 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 production team about the videos.
“I did not send the videos to anyone else. Nor did I share, display, or show the videos to anyone else,” Madix said, according to legal documents. “To be clear, I only saw the video of Plaintiff masturbating in places secluded from others.”
Madix said in her declaration that she was in a locked bathroom stall when she discovered explicit FaceTime videos of Leviss on Sandoval’s phone. “I hurriedly took out my own phone and made two recordings of the FaceTime video,” she said.
She also said she confronted Sandoval later about the videos in an alley near the West Hollywood venue where his cover band was performing, and that her ex-boyfriend “forcibly grabbed my phone from my hands” and deleted the videos from her phone. However, before he deleted the videos, Madix shared them with Leviss, with the text reading, “you’re dead to me.”
The declaration 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 with digital forensics investigations firm Maryman, also filed declarations in support of Madix’s motion to strike Leviss’ complaint.
In a statement shared with The Times on Tuesday, Leviss’ attorneys Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman criticized Madix’s motion and “her fairytale account of how she discovered the relationship from Tom’s phone.”
The statement added: “Meanwhile, we look forward to cross examining her on her declaration, as we have irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed. Lastly, the forensic ‘expert’ states that the video is not ‘NOW’ on her phone, well after the events in question and with months of notice that her actions had put her in legal jeopardy.”
Days before Madix filed her declaration, Sandoval, 40, filed his response: a motion to strike portions of Leviss’ lawsuit.
“Leviss’ lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt to extend her fame and to rebrand herself as the victim instead of the other woman while denigrating her former friend Madix as a ‘scorned woman’ and her former paramour Sandoval as ‘predatory,’” the TomTom Restaurant & Bar co-founder’s motion said.
At the core of Sandoval’s response, filed April 22, are Leviss’ 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 her knowledge or consent.
Sandoval’s motion counters the accusations, alleging that “these videos were created by Leviss and published by Leviss to Sandoval via a consensual exchange on Facetime, i.e., ‘their video calls.’”
The court documents continued: “Based on Leviss’ own allegations, Sandoval merely saved 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 either dismissal or amendment.” He requested that the court grant his motion against Leviss’ suit in its entirety and strike her request for special compensatory damages.
“The allegations in support of this cause of action are conclusory and devoid of sufficient facts to evidence [Sandoval’s] conduct as being intentional, willful or fradulent, let alone despicable,” the declaration says.
In their statement to The Times, Leviss’ attorneys fired back at Sandoval’s declaration.
“Sandoval’s response in the face of irrefutable evidence that will be presented in court is disturbing,” they said. “Leveraging such claims for media attention and perpetuating victim-blaming is not just deplorable but actionable.”
©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
