Rachel Leviss still has her case alive after a California appellate court on Wednesday refused to overturn a July 2024 ruling that kept Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval in the lawsuit. The decision extends a fight that has already been stalled for more than two years.
The appeal turned on whether Madix’s conduct could be shielded by California anti-SLAPP law. The lower court said no in July 2024, finding the conduct unlawful, and the appellate court left that ruling in place.
July 2024 ruling stays put
February 2024 is when Leviss filed the invasion of privacy and revenge porn claims against Madix and Sandoval. Her complaint centers on allegations that Madix improperly obtained and shared sexually explicit videos of Leviss that she found on Sandoval’s phone.
Madix’s own declaration added the factual dispute that kept the case moving. She said she secretly accessed Sandoval’s phone without his knowledge or permission, copied the FaceTime videos while inside a women’s bathroom stall, and then sent snippets of the intimate video directly to Leviss the night she discovered the recordings.
Madix’s own account
Madix also said, “I did not send the videos to anyone else. Nor did I share, display, or show the videos to anyone else.” She said Sandoval then grabbed her phone and deleted the videos, and that minutes later she texted Logan Cochran that “Tom took my phone and deleted them.”
That version of events does not erase Leviss’ claim; it explains why the case survived the anti-SLAPP challenge. When a court treats conduct as unlawful rather than protected speech or petitioning, the defendant loses the quick-dismissal shield that California anti-SLAPP law is built to provide.
Aug. 11 status hearing
Bryan J. Freedman, Leviss’ lawyer, said, “We are pleased but not surprised that the court of appeal affirmed Judge Crowley’s well-reasoned decision to dismiss Ariana Madix’s anti-SLAPP motion.” He added, “Hopefully, the defendants will now stop playing delay games and allow themselves to be judged based upon their admittedly egregious conduct.”
For Leviss, the immediate consequence is simple: the lawsuit keeps moving, and the delay stops being the defendants’ best defense. The next status hearing is set for Aug. 11, and that is the point where the parties will have to decide whether they keep fighting or start dealing with the claims on the merits.
