Ariana Madix, Tom Sandoval, Raquel Leviss and Tom Schwartz at the Tom Sandoval & The Most Extras performance at Hotel Cafe on November 14, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. 

Former “Vanderpump Rules” cast member Rachel Leviss won a round in court when a judge denied  Ariana Madix’s bid to dismiss the plaintiff’s revenge porn and two other causes of action against her, finding that distributing intimate videos of the plaintiff has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Leviss alleges in her lawsuit that 40-year-old Tom Sandoval and the 39- year-old Madix, both still cast members on the show, produced and disseminated 𝓈ℯ𝓍ually explicit images of the plaintiff. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel Crowley previously ruled that Leviss, 29, can proceed with her claims for eavesdropping and invasion of privacy against Sandoval, but will 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 Thursday and briefly taking the case under submission, Judge Daniel M. 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 that 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.”

“I realized that these recordings depicted my private, intimate video calls with Sandoval, which he had evidently recorded without my knowledge or consent,” Leviss says. “I reacted to Madix’s messages with shock and alarm. Because the recordings were sent from her phone, not Sandoval’s, I knew that she had somehow taken possession of them. This made an already difficult situation decidedly worse.”

Leviss further says that at the time, she did not know what Madix intended to do with the videos, but that her initial actions “spoke volumes and suggested she was prepared to undertake drastic, reckless and unlawful actions toward me. I believed then and continue to believe that Madix was not in full control of her faculties at the time and was genuinely bent on revenge.”

Leviss further maintains in her suit filed Feb. 29 that she was “a victim of the predatory and dishonest behavior of an older man who recorded 𝓈ℯ𝓍ually explicit videos of her without her knowledge or consent, which were then distributed, disseminated and discussed publicly by a scorned woman seeking vengeance” against the plaintiff.