Photo Credit: Steve Granitz/FilmMagic
There are now further legal ramifications for Sandoval. Following the filing of a complaint by Rachel "Raquel" Leviss against Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval, alleging invasion of privacy, eavesdropping, revenge porn, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Madix and Sandoval have responded.
On April 26, Madix, who was charged with illegally disseminating private footage of Leviss after learning of her and Sandoval's liaison, submitted an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion opposing Leviss' lawsuit. According to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute (LII), a SLAPP suit is defined as a lawsuit "brought by individuals and entities to dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity." Anti-SLAPP motions are used to dismiss lawsuits that are deemed to be without merit.
Madix claims her actions were protected under her constitutional rights, including free speech, and that Leviss' suit has little chance of succeeding. Her filing includes a declaration from forensic experts who found no attachments with nude images on Madix's cell phone. Leviss' lawyers, Mark Geragos and Brian Freedman, criticized Madix's fairytale account of discovering the relationship from Tom's phone and look forward to cross-examining her on her declaration, as they have irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed.
In the meantime, Sandoval filed a demurrer in response to Leviss' lawsuit. Sandoval and Leviss had a covert connection between 2022 and 2023 when she was dating Madix. Demurrers, in accordance with Cornell's LII, contest "the sufficiency or adequacy of pleadings of another party," and if accepted, cases may be dismissed. This is similar to anti-SLAPP filings.
The civil code does not protect against "unconsented videotaping and only protects sound-based or symbol-based communications," according to Sandoval's filing, which E! News was able to obtain. Sandoval further claims that Leviss' allegations of eavesdropping are not substantial because Leviss' lawsuit "does not allege any facts showing that the parties' communications were confidential."
Leviss' allegations of privacy invasion and intentional emotional distress are refuted by Sandoval's filing, which states she does not provide any evidence of intrusion by Sandoval. Leviss' legal team criticized Sandoval's response, stating that it is disturbing and actionable. They also criticized Sandoval's use of irrefutable evidence in court, stating that it is deplorable to use such claims for media attention and perpetuate victim-blaming. The legal team believes Sandoval's actions are deplorable and actionable.
The 29-year-old's representative, Juliette Harris, also released a statement in reaction to Madix and Sandoval's papers.
"Public opinion remains vulnerable to manipulation by meticulously crafted PR statements and stunts aimed at shaping a particular narrative," she told E! News. "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 in such serious cases."
