A woman staying at Vanderpump Rules star Tom Sandoval’s house was served Rachel Leviss’ revenge porn lawsuit after being approached by a process server.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, the server showed up at Sandoval and his ex Ariana Madix’s $2.1 million home in Valley Village, California on March 12.
The server said he handed the legal paperwork to the 40-year-old white female — who was 5’5, had brown eyes, and weighed 140 lbs. — at 5:57 PM.
The woman was listed as “Jane Doe” but the server noted the person was a “competent member of the household.”
Madix recently moved out of the home after suing Sandoval accusing him of refusing to sell the home after their breakup.
Last month, it was reported Sandoval started dating model Victoria Lee Robinson.
Sandoval will now have weeks to respond to Leviss’ lawsuit. As we previously reported, Leviss demanded unspecified damages from her ex-lover and his ex-girlfriend Madix in her lawsuit.
In the shocking lawsuit, Leviss claimed during her affair with Sandoval — while he was with Madix — he recorded FaceTime calls they had that were sexual.
She said Sandoval did not tell her he was recording the calls. Leviss claimed Madix found the videos and sent them to her Vanderpump Rules co-stars. Leviss claimed Madix confronted her in March 2023 — BEFORE the entire scandal broke in the public. In addition, she accused the production company of fostering a hostile work environment for her after the affair was revealed.
Leviss’ powerhouse lawyer Mark Geragos said, “This lawsuit is squarely about illegal behavior and those who traffic in it and enable it. Rachel has apologized for her part in an affair. That’s not a crime. Tom and Ariana are alleged here to have engaged in criminal acts. They then doubled down and used those actions to shame, bully, belittle, and intentionally try to destroy Rachel’s mental health.”
Geragos added, “The law makes it clear that recording someone without their consent and distributing that illegal recording is punishable by law; however, doing so while knowingly enticing them to engage in sexual acts deserves the harshest of penalties allowable under the law.”
