Attorneys for former “Vanderpump Rules” cast members Rachel Leviss and Ariana Madix are recommending that a judge briefly continue an upcoming trial-setting conference in Leviss’ revenge porn case while a state appellate court panel mulls whether a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled correctly in denying Madix’s dismissal motion.
In July 2024, Judge Daniel M. Crowley denied Ariana Madix’s bid to dismiss Leviss’ revenge porn and two other causes of action against Madix, finding that distributing intimate videos of the plaintiff has nothing to do with the First Amendment. A trial-setting conference is scheduled Tuesday.
Madix’s subsequent appeal stayed discovery in Leviss’ case. In a status report filed Tuesday, lawyers for Leviss, Madix and Tom Sandoval state that a three-justice panel of the Second District Court of Appeal heard arguments on Madix’s appeal on May 27 and the panel now has the case under submission.
“Given that the appeal remains pending, the parties propose a modest further continuance of the trial-setting conference,” the attorneys state in their court papers.
Leviss alleges in her lawsuit that the 44-year-old Sandoval and the 41-year-old Madix produced and disseminated sexually explicit images of the plaintiff. In another 2024 ruling, Crowley said Leviss, 31, could proceed with her claims for eavesdropping and invasion of privacy against Sandoval, but would have to shore up her cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sandoval’s motion did not challenge Leviss’ revenge porn claim.
Madix filed a separate motion that maintained Leviss’ action is a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and asked that all three of the claims filed against their client be dismissed on free-speech grounds. After hearing arguments and briefly taking the case under submission, Crowley denied Madix’s motion.
“Plaintiff has conclusively demonstrated Madix’s conduct alleged in the three causes of action was illegal,” the judge wrote. “Therefore, (Madix) cannot meet her burden to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff’s suit arises from any act of defendant in furtherance of (Madix’s) right of petition or free speech under the United States or California constitutions in connection with a public issue because the alleged conduct is illegal and, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment or the anti-SLAPP statute.”
In their court papers, Madix’s lawyers maintained Leviss’ complaint was “an abuse of the legal process” intended to “punish Ms. Madix, and deter others, from exercising their constitutionally protected right of free speech.”
Leviss’ pleadings included a sworn declaration by Leviss, who says she became “increasingly isolated” after her romance ended with James Kennedy, another cast member.
“I began to confide in Sandoval, who had been in a relationship with Madix since 2014 and lived with her in Valley Village, California,” Leviss says. “Over time, we became increasingly close, and I began to rely on him for emotional support; he, in turn, began to confide in me about the dire state of his relationship with Madix, describing it as a business partnership and casting its end as foregone. I viewed Sandoval as a close confidante and friend and our relationship as platonic. It became increasingly clear, however, that Sandoval had different intentions.”
Leviss says Madix sent her three text messages in March 2023, two of them intimate videos of the plaintiff and the third stating, “you are DEAD TO ME.”
Madix left the show after season 11 and Bravo later put the show on hiatus.