Vanderpump Rules Alum Rachel Leviss Wins Right to Continuing Suing Ex Tom Sandoval

Rachel Leviss has been given the option to proceed with her revenge porn lawsuit against Tom Sandoval.

On Friday, May 24, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley ruled that Levissa’s claims that her intimate FaceTime conversations with Sandoval, her ex Vanderpump Rules costar and lover, were adequately considered “simultaneous” and “confidential”, per Rolling stone.

Although she was aware that she might be recorded, the court upheld the idea that Leviss did not expect Sandoval to save the recordings and make copies, the newspaper reported.

(L) Tom Sandoval and Rachel Leviss. Andrew J Cunningham/Getty; Cindy Ord/Bravo via Getty Ariana Madix claims Rachel Leviss wants to ‘punish’ and ‘blame’ her with revenge porn lawsuit

“We are pleased with the court’s order, which recognizes that filming someone in sexually compromising ways without her consent violates California law. We will aggressively move forward to defend Rachel’s rights,” Leviss’ attorney, Bryan Freedman, said in a statement to PEOPLE.

“If Sandoval’s illegal recording is not an invasion of privacy, then there is nothing that is private. The judge firmly ruled that Rachel’s rights and privacy were violated as stated, and we obviously agree,” Leviss’ attorney, Mark Geragos, said in a statement. TO PEOPLE.

Sandoval’s attorneys did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

In February 2024, Leviss sued Sandoval and Madix for wiretapping, revenge pornography and invasion of privacy. Claiming that she was the “victim of predatory and dishonest behavior by an older man,” Leviss alleged that Sandoval filmed sexually explicit videos “without her knowledge or consent,” and that the videos were “distributed, disseminated, and publicly discussed by despised women [Madix] seeking revenge.”

Soon after, the Schwartz & Sandys co-owner responded to the lawsuit with a motion to dismiss that claimed Leviss shot the videos herself and voluntarily shared them during their “Scandoval” affair.

Although Judge Crowley revealed his plans to uphold Leviss’ claims of wiretapping and invasion of privacy, Rolling stone reported that he was ready to hear arguments from Sandoval’s lawyers.

(L) Raquel Leviss and Tom Sandoval.

Vivien Killilea/Getty

Rachel Leviss reveals Tom Sandoval’s shocking ‘slip’ as she grapples with intimate video ‘shame’

“This is a situation where Leviss filmed herself with her own phone camera and intentionally shared those videos with the defendant. He was not eavesdropping,” his attorney, Tiffany Krog, argued, arguing that Leviss did not adequately prove that he invaded her privacy, according to the statement. “Her sharing of the videos was a simultaneous sharing, as opposed to understanding that they could have been recorded, right? Isn’t it a video intrusion?” Judge Crowley asked, to which Krog replied, “I would say [Sandoval] only saved a copy of these videos that Leviss recorded with her own camera, pointing it at herself and sharing it with the defendant.”

The judge went on to point out that there is a difference between recording intimate videos with the assumption that they will “evaporate into the ether” after viewing, and knowing that it has been recorded “and is potentially subject to dissemination”.

Tom Sandoval Suggests Rachel Leviss ‘Stop Talking About Me’ If She Wants To Move On: But ‘A Girl Gotta Eat’

Leviss’ attorney, Jason Sunshine, argued later in the hearing that the only videos that exist of the exchange were those taken by Sandoval, according to the outlet.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up to date with the best PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to interesting human interest stories.“This was a video conference call, a FaceTime call , and he was secretly filming them for his own personal sexual pleasure,” Sunshine claimed. “It’s a clear invasion of privacy.”

Although Judge Crowley ruled in favor of Levissa’s wiretapping and privacy claims, he stated that the information she provided was insufficient to proceed with her third emotional distress claim. Instead, the judge gave her 20 days to correct her filing.

Categories: Trends
Source: HIS Education