Ariana Madix has filed an "anti-SLAPP" motion to dismiss Rachel Leviss' revenge porn lawsuit against her and her ex, Tom Sandoval.
According to legal documents obtained by ET, the 38-year-old former bartender is asking a Los Angeles court to throw out the February suit that Leviss, 29, filed in which she accused Sandoval, 40, and Madix of creating revenge porn, eavesdropping, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
In their new filing, Madix's legal team calls Leviss' case an example of a "SLAPP" suit -- a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- and asks that all three of the claims filed against their client -- revenge porn creation, infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy -- be dismissed. They are also asking that per the anti-SLAPP statute in California -- the state where the case is based -- Madix's attorneys' fees be paid by Leviss, saying that her suit is "an abuse of the legal process."
A SLAPP lawsuit is defined as legal action taken by one party that is intended to "dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. By definition, SLAPP suits do not have any true legal claims against the critics," according to the Cornell Law School. Madix claims that Leviss, through her lawsuit, "does not seek to vindicate any cognizable rights but to punish" and to deter her and others from "exercising their constitutionally protected right of free speech."
Contrary to claims that Leviss and her team have made regarding the nature of her affair with Sandoval coming to light and Madix's knowledge of said affair, Madix's lawyers -- Jordan Susman and Margo Arnold -- claim she was in the dark completely with regard to the affair between her then-partner and their Vanderpump Rules co-star.
"Ms. Madix did not know about the affair. But on March 1, 2023, Ms. Madix learned about it in the worst possible way: by discovering a video on Mr. Sandoval’s phone of Plaintiff and Mr. Sandoval having phone sex," Madix's legal counsel alleges.
Madix’s motion to discuss claims that while she was "devastated" upon making the discovery and did inform her friends and colleagues to the situation, she did not participate in any illegal activity surrounding explicit photos, videos or evidence of the affair between Sandoval and Leviss. that while she was "devastated" upon making the discovery and did inform her friends and colleagues to the situation, she did not participate in any illegal activity surrounding explicit photos, videos or evidence of the affair between Sandoval and Leviss.
"One thing Ms. Madix did not do was share or show any of the video footage she found on Mr. Sandoval’s phone with anyone but Plaintiff. In fact, Ms. Madix could not have shared such footage because Mr. Sandoval deleted it from her phone within minutes of Ms. Madix confronting him—a fact Ms. Madix stated in writing 33 minutes after sending the videos to Plaintiff," Susman and Arnold claim in the legal motion.
Leviss' lawyers, Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman, reacted to Madix's legal filing late Monday evening in a statement to ET, calling her motion and recollection of the events "laughable."
"The only thing more laughable than Ariana's motion is her fairytale account of how she discovered the relationship from Tom's phone. Meanwhile, we look forward to cross examining her on her declaration, as we have irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed," they told ET. "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."
The court has yet to rule on Madix's motion to strike. The next court date is scheduled for July 11.
Madix's filing comes shortly after Sandoval's own legal team claimed that Leviss is attempting to paint Madix as a "scorned woman" and the TomTom owner as "predatory." In response, Sandoval also alleged that Leviss’ podcast, Rachel Goes Rogue, is a strategic move to manipulate the narrative.
As for Leviss' claims that Sandoval filmed their intimate FaceTime calls in which she appeared "in a state of undress and masturbating" without her consent, Sandoval's attorneys argue that said videos were allegedly created and shared consensually and that Sandoval merely saved private copies of the videos.
Sandoval is also requesting Leviss’ lawsuit either be dismissed or amended.
Geragos and Freedman also reacted to Sandoval's response, writing, "Sandoval's response in the face of irrefutable evidence that will be presented in court is disturbing. Leveraging such claims for media attention and perpetuating victim-blaming is not just deplorable but actionable."
Leviss' publicist Juliette Harris tells ET in response to Tom and Ariana’s filing, "In today's age of social media-driven instant gratification, viewers crave immediate answers and frequently indulge in speculation, often resulting in the dissemination of misinformation. Public opinion remains vulnerable to manipulation by meticulously crafted PR statements and stunts aimed at shaping a particular narrative. It's imperative that such matters be adjudicated through the legal system, relying on factual evidence rather than entertainment rhetoric, to ensure justice prevails over sensationalism especially with such serious cases."
Vanderpump Rules airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m. ET on Bravo.
RELATED CONTENT:
