Connect with us

Entertainment

Ariana Madix, Tom Sandoval counter ‘Vanderpump’ co-star Rachel Leviss' revenge-porn lawsuit

Published

on

Ariana Madix, Tom Sandoval counter ‘Vanderpump’ co-star Rachel Leviss' revenge-porn lawsuit

“Vanderpump Rules” exes Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval fired back at former co-star Rachel Leviss, denying her allegations that they distributed sexually explicit videos without her consent.

Last week, Madix and Sandoval filed separate responses in Los Angeles County Superior Court to Leviss’ February lawsuit, which accuses the former romantic partners of eavesdropping, revenge porn, invasion of privacy and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The 29-year-old reality TV star’s complaint stems from the tabloid scandal — known among Bravo fans as “Scandoval” — that revealed she had been sleeping with Sandoval, Madix’s longtime boyfriend.

A legal representative for Leviss (formerly “Raquel Leviss”) did not immediately respond Monday to The Times’ request for comment.

Madix, 38, filed a declaration on Friday requesting that the court strike Leviss’ complaint, citing California’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects against frivolous lawsuits. The reality TV personality turned Broadway star‘s declaration countered Leviss’ claims that Madix had obtained and distributed at least two sexually explicit videos of Leviss without her knowledge or consent. Leviss claimed in her February complaint that her co-star had informed the “Vanderpump” cast and production team about the videos.

“I did not send the videos to anyone else. Nor did I share, display, or show the videos to anyone else,” Madix said, according to legal documents. “To be clear, I only saw the video of Plaintiff masturbating in places secluded from others.”

Advertisement

Madix said in her declaration that she was in a locked bathroom stall when she discovered explicit FaceTime videos of Leviss on Sandoval’s phone. “I hurriedly took out my own phone and made two recordings of the FaceTime video,” she said.

She also said she confronted Sandoval later about the videos in an alley near the West Hollywood venue where his cover band was performing, and that her ex-boyfriend “forcibly grabbed my phone from my hands” and deleted the videos from her phone. However, before he deleted the videos, Madix shared them with Leviss, with the text reading, “you’re dead to me.”

The declaration added that Madix had informed friends and family about Sandoval’s affair, and included screenshots of text message exchanges between Madix and Leviss and between Madix and a friend about Madix’s discovery of the affair.

Attorney Margo Arnold and Joseph Greenfield, vice president and chief forensic examiner with digital forensics investigations firm Maryman, also filed declarations in support of Madix’s motion to strike Leviss’ complaint.

Days before Madix filed her declaration, Sandoval, 40, filed his response: a motion to strike portions of Leviss’ lawsuit.

Advertisement

“Leviss’ lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt to extend her fame and to rebrand herself as the victim instead of the other woman while denigrating her former friend Madix as a ‘scorned woman’ and her former paramour Sandoval as ‘predatory,’” the TomTom Restaurant & Bar co-founder’s motion said.

At the core of Sandoval’s response, filed April 22, are Leviss’ alleged “dubious and supported causes of action” against Sandoval. In February, Leviss alleged that Sandoval had recorded sexually explicit clips of his co-star without her knowledge or consent.

Sandoval’s motion counters the accusations, alleging that “these videos were created by Leviss and published by Leviss to Sandoval via a consensual exchange on Facetime, i.e., ‘their video calls.’”

The court documents continued: “Based on Leviss’ own allegations, Sandoval merely saved private copies of the videos that Leviss had filmed and shared with him.”

Citing “deficient allegations” in the February lawsuit, Sandoval said Leviss’ causes of action “fail and require either dismissal or amendment.” He requested that the court grant his motion against Leviss’ suit in its entirety and strike her request for special compensatory damages.

Advertisement

“The allegations in support of this cause of action are conclusory and devoid of sufficient facts to evidence [Sandoval’s] conduct as being intentional, willful or fradulent, let alone despicable,” the declaration says.

In a statement shared with People last week, Leviss’ attorneys Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman fired back at Sandoval’s declaration.

“Sandoval’s response in the face of irrefutable evidence that will be presented in court is disturbing,” they said. “Leveraging such claims for media attention and perpetuating victim-blaming is not just deplorable but actionable.”

Advertisement

Entertainment

After Amazon drops OpenAI movie ‘Artificial,’ film finds new home at Neon

Published

on

After Amazon drops OpenAI movie ‘Artificial,’ film finds new home at Neon

A Hollywood portrayal of OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman portrayed by actor Andrew Garfield will be released later this year, after Amazon MGM Studios dropped the movie.

“Artificial,” which chronicles Altman‘s 2023 ouster from OpenAI and his reinstatement as CEO, was acquired by Neon, the studio announced Tuesday.

“The acquisition underscores Neon’s commitment to partnering with visionary filmmakers, and bringing ambitious cinema to audiences around the world,” the studio said in a statement. “Artificial will compete in this year’s Oscar race.”

The film has a critical take on artificial intelligence, according to three sources briefed on it who declined to be named. That portrayal caused Amazon to want to distance itself from the film, given the company’s $50 billion investment in OpenAI, two of the sources said.

Amazon declined to comment on the claims. In a statement, the company said it has “the utmost respect and admiration” for the movie’s director Luca Guadagnino. “We believe that ‘Artificial’ will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home,” Amazon said.

Advertisement

The deal was negotiated by Neon, CAA Media Finance and Amazon. CAA and Amazon declined to comment. A Neon spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions regarding the financial terms of the deal.

Puck News first reported Amazon dropping the movie.

Other studios, including Netflix, A24 and Focus Features, screened “Artificial.” Netflix and Focus passed on the film.

Amazon’s decision to drop the film comes at a time when Hollywood is grappling with the growth of artificial intelligence. Some creatives are concerned that the technology could displace jobs; others worry that their likenesses are being used to train AI models without their permission or compensation.

Meanwhile, many AI companies are eager to work with studios, saying their AI tools can help speed processes and reduce costs.

Advertisement

To foster more nuanced discussions about artificial intelligence, Google is collaborating with talent management firm Range Media Partners to develop films that present a less dystopian view of the technology.

Amazon passing on the film raises questions about whether tech company-backed studios would be willing to release movies that are critical of innovations in which they have a stake. It could create a chilling effect, said Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University’s Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture.

“The chilling effect could not only be on films critical of AI, they could be on films critical of all kinds of things that these companies have their tentacles in,” Thompson said.

Stories about tech company founders can be attractive to audiences, most notably with the 2010 film “The Social Network” about the founding of Facebook. That film earned $225 million worldwide at the box office, according to Paul Dergarabedian, head of marketplace trends at Rentrak. “The Social Network” came out a time when many people were talking about Facebook and had big talent behind it, including director David Fincher, Dergarabedian said.

“Neon is a perfect custodian for this film, and they will shepherd it to the big screen, I think very effectively,” he said. “They’re very filmmaker-centric … I think they found the perfect home with Neon.”

Advertisement

“Artificial” features major talent, with actor Monica Barbaro portraying former OpenAI Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati, and Ike Barinholtz as Elon Musk. Other actors include Jason Schwartzman and Billie Lourd.

Director Guadagnino has worked on films including “Challengers” and “Call Me By Your Name.”

Staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Young Washington (Christian Movie Review) – The Collision

Published

on

Young Washington (Christian Movie Review) – The Collision

About the Film 

Advertisement

On the Surface

For Consideration

Advertisement

Advertisement

Beneath The Surface

Engage The Film

The Makings of a Leader

Advertisement

  • Daniel holds a PhD in “Christianity and the Arts” from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author/co-author of multiple books and he speaks in churches and schools across the country on the topics of Christian worldview, apologetics, creative writing, and the Arts.

    Advertisement

    View all posts


Continue Reading

Entertainment

’47 Ronin’ director Carl Erik Rinsch sentenced to 30 months in prison for Netflix fraud case

Published

on

’47 Ronin’ director Carl Erik Rinsch sentenced to 30 months in prison for Netflix fraud case

Carl Erik Rinsch, the director of the 2013 Keanu Reeves action film “47 Ronin,” will serve more than two years in federal prison for defrauding Netflix of $11 million.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff on Monday sentenced 48-year-old Rinsch to 30 months in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, announced. Federal prosecutors convicted Rinsch in December of wire fraud, money laundering and other counts. A legal representative for Rinsch did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Federal prosecutors indicted Rinsch in March 2025, alleging the $11 million went into Rinsch’s personal accounts. The filmmaker “quickly transferred” the money from the Rinsch Co. account, where it had been deposited March 6, 2020, by Netflix, through additional accounts until about $10.5 million wound up weeks later in a personal brokerage account. He lost more than half of that money in less than two months via risky investments in the stock market, the indictment said.

Though Rinsch told the streamer that his sci-fi show “White Horse” was progressing nicely, the filmmaker allegedly moved the remaining money into cryptocurrency and profited from crypto speculation over the next couple of years. The streamer had invested around $44 million in the show. Rinsch was accused of spending around $10 million on five Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari, watches, clothing, luxury bedding and linens, credit card bills, attorneys to sue Netflix for more money, and lawyers to work on his divorce.

He was arrested in West Hollywood and released the same day after agreeing to post a $100,000 bond to guarantee his appearance in a New York federal court.

Advertisement

Rinsch never finished the Netflix show.

During his sentencing, Rinsch and his legal team told the court his behavior was a result of mental health struggles and medication problems and they are working to address those issues with a new care provider, the Associated Press reported.

“I failed to recognize the danger of the state I was in,” Rinsch said, though his mental issues were not described in court, and his attorneys declined to provide further detail.

Ahead of the sentencing, Reeves — the star of Rinsch’s most notable project to date — penned a letter in May requesting “leniency and mercy as well as justice” in the filmmaker’s sentencing.

In addition to prison time, Rinsch must serve three years of supervised release, forfeit the $11 million and pay $700 in mandatory special assessments, according to Monday’s announcement. U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said in the announcement: “Today’s sentence sends a deterrent message: fraud will not be tolerated.”

Advertisement

The Associated Press and former Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending