Kalyn v. Arianna Lawsuit: Anti-SLAPP Ruling and Appeal

Rachel Leviss’s lawsuit against her former Vanderpump Rules co-stars Tom Sandoval and Ariana Madix accuses Sandoval of secretly recording sexually explicit FaceTime videos of her and accuses Madix of distributing those videos after finding them on Sandoval’s phone. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on February 29, 2024, the case brings claims of revenge porn, eavesdropping, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.¹ It is still active in 2026, with an appeal pending and no new trial date set.

What Leviss Is Suing Over

The complaint, case number 24STCV05072, is assigned to Judge Daniel M. Crowley in Department 71 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.² Leviss is represented by Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman. An amended complaint followed on June 13, 2024.³

The central factual allegation is that Sandoval recorded sexually explicit videos of Leviss during private FaceTime calls in or around February 2023 without her knowledge. The complaint describes at least two videos showing her in a state of undress and states she believes additional recordings may exist.⁴

The videos surfaced on March 1, 2023, when Sandoval’s phone fell out of his pocket at a concert and was returned to Madix, his longtime girlfriend. Madix searched the phone and found the explicit material. Leviss alleges Madix then sent two of the videos directly to her by text with the message “you are DEAD TO ME” and also showed or disclosed them to members of the Vanderpump Rules cast and production team.¹

The amended complaint splits the claims by defendant. Sandoval faces eavesdropping and invasion of privacy claims for allegedly recording the calls. Madix faces a revenge porn claim under California Civil Code Section 1708.85 and an invasion of privacy claim. Both are sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.³ Leviss seeks at least $129,849 in damages, plus punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction ordering destruction of all copies of the recordings.⁴

Geragos has framed the case as separate from the affair itself. “Rachel has apologized for her part in an affair. That’s not a crime,” he said. “Tom and Ariana are alleged here to have engaged in criminal acts.”⁵

How Sandoval and Madix Have Responded

Sandoval filed a motion to strike in April 2024, arguing the videos were part of a “consensual exchange” over FaceTime and that he “merely saved private copies” of what Leviss had voluntarily shared. He called the lawsuit an attempt by Leviss to “extend her fame” and recast herself as a victim.⁶

Madix’s response flatly denied the distribution allegation. In a declaration, she said she found a single video of Leviss masturbating on Sandoval’s phone while locked in a bathroom stall, recorded two clips of it on her own phone for evidence, and then confronted Sandoval, who grabbed her phone and deleted the recordings within minutes.⁶ She acknowledged sending the clips to Leviss before they were deleted but denied showing them to anyone else, including production staff. Her filings characterize the suit as “an abuse of the legal process” and ask the court to strike the claims and award her attorneys’ fees.⁷

The Anti-SLAPP Ruling and the Appeal

Madix’s attempt to end the case early has been the central legal battle so far. Her attorney, Jordan Susman, moved to dismiss the revenge porn and related claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows early dismissal of suits that target constitutionally protected speech. The argument was that Madix’s conduct touched on a matter of public interest because the parties are reality television personalities and the affair had drawn enormous media coverage.⁸

Judge Crowley denied the motion on July 11, 2024. He found that Madix had not met her initial burden of showing the challenged conduct qualified as protected activity, ruling that the alleged distribution of explicit videos was “illegal as a matter of law” and therefore not shielded by the First Amendment or the anti-SLAPP law.⁹ Because Madix failed at step one, the court never reached the question of whether Leviss was likely to prevail on the merits.³

Madix appealed. A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, heard oral arguments on May 27, 2026, before Associate Justices Victor Viramontes, John Shepard Wiley Jr., and Matthew Scherb.¹⁰ Susman argued the trial court had wrongly concluded the recordings were not a matter of public concern, pointing out that Vanderpump Rules centered on the cast’s real romantic lives. He also maintained Madix had prior consent to access Sandoval’s phone, while conceding there was “no evidence, one way or the other” on that point.

The panel appeared skeptical. Justice Viramontes questioned the connection between public curiosity and genuine “public concern” under the statute, and Justice Wiley asked whether starring on a reality show forfeited a cast member’s privacy rights entirely. A four-page tentative ruling the court had already issued suggested that while Leviss qualified as a public figure, not every aspect of her personal life amounts to a matter of public concern.¹⁰ Geragos told the panel the recordings involved “criminal acts” and that public-figure status does not strip someone of basic privacy protections. The panel took the matter under submission without issuing an immediate decision.¹¹

Where the Case Stands

The lawsuit remains open. The original November 3, 2025 trial date was vacated by stipulation in June 2025. According to the most recent docket entries, a trial-setting conference and a status conference on the appeal are both set for August 11, 2026, in Department 71.¹² No new trial date has been publicly set.

A separate dispute between Madix and Sandoval over the sale of the Los Angeles home they once shared was settled in January 2026, but that matter is unrelated to Leviss’s suit, which continues on its own track.¹³

1
Los Angeles Times. Rachel Leviss Sues Tom Sandoval and Ariana Madix
2
Rulings.law. 24STCV05072
3
CBS News Los Angeles. Vanderpump Rules Star Ariana Madix Fails to Get Rachel Leviss’s Revenge Porn Claim Dismissed
4
Deadline. Leviss Complaint
5
NBC News. Rachel Leviss Sues Tom Sandoval, Ariana Madix
6
Los Angeles Times. Tom Sandoval, Ariana Madix Respond to Rachel Leviss Revenge Porn Lawsuit
7
People. Ariana Madix Claims Rachel Leviss Seeking to Blame Her in Revenge Porn Lawsuit
8
Courthouse News Service. Vanderpump Rules Cast Member Asks Judge to Toss Revenge Porn Lawsuit Citing Free Speech Rights
9
Courthouse News Service. Scandoval Anti-SLAPP Ruling
10
Courthouse News Service. Appeals Court Unlikely to Intervene in Scandoval Revenge Porn Lawsuit
11
Yahoo Entertainment. Rachel Leviss Court Case Against Ariana Madix
12
UniCourt. Case Record – 24STCV05072
13
People. Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval Settle Legal Battle Over California Home