The Dan Bilzerian and Janice Griffith lawsuit was a personal injury case filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in December 2014 after Griffith broke her foot during a Hustler magazine photoshoot in which Bilzerian threw her from the roof of his Hollywood Hills home toward a swimming pool. Griffith voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on December 7, 2015, and the related cross-complaints were dismissed later that month. No settlement terms have been publicly disclosed.1UniCourt. Janice Griffith vs. LFP Internet Group LLC et al.
What Happened at the Photoshoot
On April 23, 2014, Griffith, then 18, was at Bilzerian’s home for a Hustler photoshoot built around Bilzerian’s lifestyle.2TMZ. Dan Bilzerian Lawsuit Janice Griffith Porn Star Roof Pool Broken Foot The planned shot called for Bilzerian to throw Griffith from the roof into the pool below. The throw fell short. Griffith struck the concrete edge of the pool and broke her foot.3Jezebel. Instagram Celeb Tosses Porn Star Off Roof Into Pool, Breaks Her Foot
Video of the stunt was published by TMZ the next day and spread quickly. Griffith confirmed the injury on Twitter, writing, “I broke my foot today,” and later posted that she had been forced to cancel work, asking, “Anyone trying to book a gal with a broken foot?”4HuffPost UK. Naked Porn Star Janice Griffith Breaks Foot After Dan Bilzerian Roof Video Bilzerian did not address the incident on his own social media accounts at the time, but told TMZ the broken foot was not his fault, saying Griffith had held onto him too tightly during the throw and caused her to miss the pool.5TMZ. Dan Bilzerian Porn Star Roof Video
The Pre-Lawsuit Demand and Bilzerian’s Response
Before filing suit, Griffith retained attorney Shoham Solouki of Solouki Savoy LLP and demanded $85,000 in damages.6ABA Journal. Cease and Desist Letters Gallery Bilzerian’s attorney, Tom Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, answered with a cease-and-desist letter that circulated widely for its tone.
Goldstein’s core legal argument was assumption of risk. He wrote that video of the shoot showed the pair “carefully practicing this flight of fancy” under Hustler’s direction and that Griffith “expressly agreed to go ahead.” He noted Griffith was under contract with Hustler and had consented to be photographed while being thrown from the roof. He also raised contributory fault, arguing Griffith grabbed Bilzerian’s shirt during the throw and caused the stunt to go wrong.7Above the Law. The Most Epic Lawyer Response Ever to a Porn Star Threatening to Sue8LAist. Letter to the Lawyer of a Porn Star
Goldstein called the claim “frivolous,” said Bilzerian would not settle, and wrote that Griffith “will obviously lose.” He cited her Twitter posts as evidence her career was “gangbusters,” and closed with a line about the facts of the claim not quite flying. He also made a tongue-in-cheek demand that Griffith “box up almost every last bit of her property” and leave it with her attorney as security for Bilzerian, should the case go forward and fail.6ABA Journal. Cease and Desist Letters Gallery
The Complaint
Griffith filed suit anyway. The case, Janice Griffith v. LFP Internet Group LLC et al., No. BC566899, was filed December 16, 2014, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, as a personal injury action. The named defendants were Bilzerian, LFP Internet Group LLC (sued as Hustler Magazine), and LFP Publishing Group, LLC.9Courthouse News Service. Model Sues Hustler10PlainSite. Janice Griffith v. LFP Internet Group LLC et al.
Griffith alleged that Bilzerian and Hustler had suggested the roof-to-pool stunt and assured her it was safe, despite knowing she lacked the skills to perform it safely. She sought unspecified damages and lost wages, and said that her pre-suit outreach to Bilzerian and his attorney had been met with an “unprofessional” response.2TMZ. Dan Bilzerian Lawsuit Janice Griffith Porn Star Roof Pool Broken Foot
Cross-Claims Among the Defendants
The case did not stay a two-sided fight. In January 2015, LFP Publishing Group filed a cross-complaint against Bilzerian alleging negligence and seeking indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. In February 2015, Bilzerian filed his own cross-complaint seeking complete indemnity, and he named Griffith herself as a cross-defendant. The court ruled on Griffith’s demurrer to Bilzerian’s cross-complaint in August 2015, though the docket does not detail the ruling.1UniCourt. Janice Griffith vs. LFP Internet Group LLC et al.10PlainSite. Janice Griffith v. LFP Internet Group LLC et al.
A third party, Nathaniel D. Smith (listed in some docket entries as “Smith Nate Igor”), was brought in as a cross-defendant and filed a motion for a determination of good faith settlement in October 2015. The docket does not describe his role in the underlying incident.
How the Case Ended
The case never reached trial. On December 7, 2015, Griffith filed a request for dismissal of her complaint with prejudice, giving up the right to refile the same claims. The remaining cross-complaints were dismissed on December 28, 2015, and LFP Publishing Group’s cross-complaint against Smith was formally dismissed in February 2016.1UniCourt. Janice Griffith vs. LFP Internet Group LLC et al.
Neither the court file nor public reporting discloses the terms on which the matter was resolved. A dismissal with prejudice is consistent with a private settlement, but no settlement figure or terms have ever been made public.