Raquel Leviss Defeats Ariana Madix & Tom Sandoval’s Attempt To Get Ex-‘Vanderpump Rules’ Star’s Revenge Porn Suit Tossed Out – Update
UPDATE, 7:45 PM: The writing on the courthouse wall pretty much indicated where things were going in Rachel Leviss’ revenge porn lawsuit against her former Vanderpump Rules co-star Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval, but now it’s official.
After a hearing Thursday morning in DTLA on Madix’s motion to have her long term boyfriend’s ex-lover’s legal action thrown out under the banner of free speech, LA Superior Court Judge Daniel Crowley has issued his order – and looks like the defendants failed to pass the First Amendment test.
More from Deadline
“Madix’s conduct is not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because the alleged conduct was illegal as a matter of law,” Judge Crowley said in his minute order.
Which means this Reality TV melee is going to trial on November 3 next year.
Caught having an affair with Sandoval in Season 10 of VR, Leviss saw a video of her masturbating that Sandoval filmed discovered by Madix on her partner of a decade’s phone. The result? The all-Hell-breaking loose of Scandoval.
Today, Judge Crowley pulled it all back to reality and signed off on Leviss’ February filed complaint going forward.
“Plaintiff has conclusively demonstrated Madix’s conduct alleged in the three causes of action was illegal,” the judge said in his 19-page missive. “Therefore, Defendant cannot meet her burden to make a prima facie showing that Plaintiff’s suit arises “from any act of [defendant] in furtherance of [defendants’] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution 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.”
That’s Judge’s Rules.
“We are pleased at the Court’s recognition that Ms. Madix’s actions were illegal,” Leviss’ anti-unscripted attorney Bryan Freedman told Deadline once the order became public.
“She does not have a free speech right to break into her boyfriend’s phone, steal sexually compromising videos of another woman, and disseminate them to menace and terrorize her,” the sharp tongue and sharp elbows lawyer added. “Her actions went well beyond protected speech, and her anger at Rachel provides no legal cover for lashing out in violation of multiple criminal laws.”
PREVIOUSLY, 2:20 PM: Things are about to get very real in the revenge-porn legal fracas of Rachel Leviss against ex-BFF Ariana Madix and former paramour(ish) Tom Sandoval.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge hasn’t yet offered a ruling on Madix and Sandoval’s bid to get Leviss’ case tossed out, but he has set a trial date. Right now, though it could change, the Vanderpump Rules stars will be facing off on November 3, 2025.
Though, like the best and worst of reality TV, it might be a long and bitter road to get there.
In the seemingly never-ending saga of the explicit video and two-timing that captivated multiple seasons of the Bravo hit, Leviss sued Madix and Sandoval in February on claims of revenge porn, eavesdropping, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As one would expect, Madix and Sandoval — the former long-term couple before Sandoval had an affair with Leviss that exploded on Season 10 of Vanderpump Rules — aren’t going along with Leviss, who is represented by Bryan Freedman, Jason Sunshine and Mark Geragos.
In an early-morning hearing Thursday in downtown Los Angeles, Judge Daniel Crawley entertained arguments from lawyers on both sides about Madix and Sandoval’s moving to have Leviss’ February 29 complaint gutted under California’s free-speech-defending anti-SLAPP laws; Crawley earlier this year removed the emotional distress claim from the civil suit. Although Madix’s attorney Jordan Sussman pitched to the judge that “Ms. Leviss has put her entire life, including her sex life, before the public,” the plaintiff’s team pushed back on the claims of distribution of the footage of Leviss masturbating that is at the heart of this case.
“The court is in a position to readily conclude by virtue of the evidence, she has violated numerous criminal statutes, and therefore her conduct is not protected activity,” Sunshine said of Madix allegedly showing the video she discovered on Sandoval’s phone to others and the resulting Scandoval.
“The law suggests that anything beyond the expressly authorized dissemination of pornographic materials constitutes revenge porn,” Sunshine went on to say today. “The act was intended to menace her, to terrorize her, to put her on notice that Ms. Madix knows about the affair and hates her,” he added of Madix’s conduct in this context toward Leviss.
As well as a variety of damages, Leviss and her lawyers wants all copies of a NSFW FaceTime video of her and Sandoval destroyed. They also are seeking an injunction to make sure nobody ever sees it again.
Mentioned frequently in Leviss’ initial filing, Bravo, NBCUniversal, Andy Cohen and other Vanderpump producers are not named defendants – though the outlet, the media giant and the sharp-elbowed host have all been in the dark spotlight over their machinations in the sordid underbelly of unscripted TV.
That injunction sought by Leviss would distinctly pull the corporate overlords into this case – whether during the penciled-in trial or later.
Lawyers for Madix and Sandoval did not respond to request for comment by Deadline. Attorneys for Leviss also did not respond to request for comment. If and when they do, this post will be updated.
A Leviss-less Season 11 of Vanderpump Rules wrapped its Bravo run at the end of May. In April it was revealed that summer filming of a Season 12 would be delayed as a result of the excess of Scandoval.
Having said that, we will update this post once Crawley issues his official ruling on today’s hearing.
Best of Deadline
Hollywood & Media Deaths In 2024: Photo Gallery & Obituaries
Step & Repeat Gallery: The Best Red Carpet & Party Photos Of 2024
Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
