News Mo. woman wins $5.8M in 'Girls Gone Wild' case - Page 3

DTLB58 · 04-28-2012, 08:17 AM

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The company that makes "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs is seeking to overturn a verdict awarding nearly $6 million to a St. Louis-area woman who claims her bare breasts were recorded without permission.

St. Louis Circuit Judge John Garvey last month sided with Tamara Favazza in her suit against Mantra Films Inc. and MRA Holdings LLC, awarding her $5.77 million. She was a 20-year-old college student in 2005 when someone lifted her tank top during a party at a St. Louis bar, exposing her breasts. Another person filmed it. She later discovered the recording was part of the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" DVD series.

Favazza claimed in the suit originally filed in 2008 that she did not give consent and the resulting DVD damaged her reputation. A St. Louis jury sided with the DVD makers in 2010, but a retrial was granted.

Garvey issued his ruling on March 5. On Wednesday, the defendants filed motions asking that the judgment be set aside and a new trial granted.

Jeffrey Medler, an attorney for Favazza, said he will "vigorously oppose" any effort to overturn the ruling.

Several messages left with David Dalton, the last listed attorney for Mantra Films and MRA Holdings were not returned. Phone calls to Mantra Films' office in California went unanswered.

"Girls Gone Wild" videos and DVDs, featuring young women exposing themselves on camera, have made a fortune for founder Joe Francis. But he has been targeted with dozens of lawsuits from women who said they were upset at being filmed. Francis was originally named in Favazza's suit but was dismissed from the case in 2009.

The video was made at a bar then known as the Rum Jungle near the St. Louis riverfront. Earlier court testimony indicated that a woman acting as a contractor for "Girls Gone Wild" pulled down Favazza's shirt at the shoulder strap, exposing her breasts.

Favazza, now a 26-year-old wife and mother, claimed that she only became aware of her appearance in the video when a friend of her husband pointed it out. She sued soon after learning she was in the video.

Three months after a jury sided with "Girls Gone Wild" in 2010, the judge in that case, John J. Riley, ordered a new trial, ruling that the verdict didn't reflect the weight of evidence. He wrote that it was clear in the video that Favazza was an "unwilling participant," saying she is seen mouthing the word "no" as her shirt is pulled down.

But attorneys for Mantra Films and MRA Holdings said at the first trial that signs posted at the bar explained how the video would be used.

The case took another twist in January when Dalton withdrew as counsel. When the judge heard the case on Feb. 17, Favazza's attorneys presented their case, but there was no representative for Mantra Films or MRA Holdings.

In asking for the judgment to be set aside, Dalton wrote that the defendants "reasonably and rightfully believed they were still represented by counsel and that the cause was being defended."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mo-wom...201208653.html

Papi · 04-28-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

Yeah, those faces afterwards do not seem like a no face..

This. Times 5.8 million

Nightfyre · 04-28-2012, 04:24 PM

She has a ring on in those pics... I'm sure her husband was pleased to see how his wife was spending her time.

sedated · 04-28-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

NSFW.

http://imgur.com/a/29C3B/jane_doe039...ity_girls_orgy

She doesn't seem very upset.

Oh, and...not bad.

**Lumpy** · 04-28-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

She doesn't seem very upset.

Oh, and...not bad.

I agree that she doesn't look upset. She has the, "hey, guys, check out these fun-bags", look in every pic.

No comment on her boobs.

I honestly cringe every time I see a GGW commercial. I always wonder how many dads buy those DVD's and see their daughter's goods?

**kysirsoze** · 04-28-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bump

stupid bitch better not get a cent, I bet she loved it at the time.

Issues...

**Lumpy** · 04-28-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It isn't a live event. GGW edited the tape to ensure her conclusion.

That's pretty irresponsible of them.

GGW deserved the hit. In the grand scheme of things, it's pocket lint for Joe Francis and ultimately it will keep him from being as reckless in the future.

I'm well aware of how they're produced and you're right, (to an extent). They included her in the final production and that shouldn't have happened. I also thought that I read that she didn't sign the waiver. If that's the case, she definitely shouldn't have been included in the vid.

However, consider that the majority of these girls are probably under the influence of alcohol when they sign the waiver. That in itself should be scrutinized.

**Bugeater** · 04-28-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

Issues...

Judging from those pics, I'd have to say he's right on this one.

**kysirsoze** · 04-28-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Judging from those pics, I'd have to say he's right on this one.

Could be, but that strangely vitriolic comment came before the pics. Just thought it was a little weird.

scho63 · 04-28-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

She doesn't seem very upset.

Oh, and...not bad.

5.8 mil because they damaged her reputation? What reputation would that be? Classy stripper, dump slut, drunk bimbo?

**Bugeater** · 04-28-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

Could be, but that strangely vitriolic comment came before the pics. Just thought it was a little weird.

Oh, he's all of that.

**Saul Good** · 04-28-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

How does that matter? Celebs get shots of nip slips and vagina showing all the time in a public setting that they did not agree to be pictured, but it was in public so they dont have to sign off on it.. She needs to go after the guy who did it to her, unless he was employed by ggw.. If anything they should play that ggw is the hero by capturing what happened on tape..

Maybe because this wasn't a situation where her tit popped out because she chose to wear something that didn't cover her properly. She was at a bar, and someone pulled her top down. It's pretty clear from the pictures that she was making an (admittedly drunken) attempt at pulling her top up and covering up.

Because she is suing, people all jump her case for it. If this was just some random dude in the bar who came up and pulled your wife's top down, filmed it, and sold the video for millions of dollars, I'm sure everyone would feel a little differently about it.

Because there was some sign saying that GGW is there, "she was asking for it". People are ****ing stupid.

**Saul Good** · 04-28-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scho63

5.8 mil because they damaged her reputation? What reputation would that be? Classy stripper, dump slut, drunk bimbo?

How much should someone have to pay for pulling a drunk chick's top down, filming it, selling the video, and making billions off of it?

**Saul Good** · 04-28-2012, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I agree that she doesn't look upset. She has the, "hey, guys, check out these fun-bags", look in every pic.

Really? Which pic is it where she isn't either covering up or pulling her top back up?

listopencil · 04-28-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTLB58

ST. LOUIS (AP)...claimed that she only became aware of her appearance in the video when a friend of her husband pointed it out.

I wonder how many times he watched it before he told them.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 04-28-2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I agree that she doesn't look upset. She has the, "hey, guys, check out these fun-bags", look in every pic.

No comment on her boobs.

I honestly cringe every time I see a GGW commercial. I always wonder how many dads buy those DVD's and see their daughter's goods?

At that point, what is she supposed to be upset about?

She's pissed video of the incident was put in the DVD without her permission. That happened well after the fact.

04-28-2012, 08:17 AM
DTLB58 DT CARD COLLECTOR Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: ManCave Casino cash: $10005837	Mo. woman wins $5.8M in 'Girls Gone Wild' case ST. LOUIS (AP) — The company that makes "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs is seeking to overturn a verdict awarding nearly $6 million to a St. Louis-area woman who claims her bare breasts were recorded without permission. St. Louis Circuit Judge John Garvey last month sided with Tamara Favazza in her suit against Mantra Films Inc. and MRA Holdings LLC, awarding her $5.77 million. She was a 20-year-old college student in 2005 when someone lifted her tank top during a party at a St. Louis bar, exposing her breasts. Another person filmed it. She later discovered the recording was part of the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" DVD series. Favazza claimed in the suit originally filed in 2008 that she did not give consent and the resulting DVD damaged her reputation. A St. Louis jury sided with the DVD makers in 2010, but a retrial was granted. Garvey issued his ruling on March 5. On Wednesday, the defendants filed motions asking that the judgment be set aside and a new trial granted. Jeffrey Medler, an attorney for Favazza, said he will "vigorously oppose" any effort to overturn the ruling. Several messages left with David Dalton, the last listed attorney for Mantra Films and MRA Holdings were not returned. Phone calls to Mantra Films' office in California went unanswered. "Girls Gone Wild" videos and DVDs, featuring young women exposing themselves on camera, have made a fortune for founder Joe Francis. But he has been targeted with dozens of lawsuits from women who said they were upset at being filmed. Francis was originally named in Favazza's suit but was dismissed from the case in 2009. The video was made at a bar then known as the Rum Jungle near the St. Louis riverfront. Earlier court testimony indicated that a woman acting as a contractor for "Girls Gone Wild" pulled down Favazza's shirt at the shoulder strap, exposing her breasts. Favazza, now a 26-year-old wife and mother, claimed that she only became aware of her appearance in the video when a friend of her husband pointed it out. She sued soon after learning she was in the video. Three months after a jury sided with "Girls Gone Wild" in 2010, the judge in that case, John J. Riley, ordered a new trial, ruling that the verdict didn't reflect the weight of evidence. He wrote that it was clear in the video that Favazza was an "unwilling participant," saying she is seen mouthing the word "no" as her shirt is pulled down. But attorneys for Mantra Films and MRA Holdings said at the first trial that signs posted at the bar explained how the video would be used. The case took another twist in January when Dalton withdrew as counsel. When the judge heard the case on Feb. 17, Favazza's attorneys presented their case, but there was no representative for Mantra Films or MRA Holdings. In asking for the judgment to be set aside, Dalton wrote that the defendants "reasonably and rightfully believed they were still represented by counsel and that the cause was being defended." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mo-wom...201208653.html
Posts: 7,574

04-28-2012, 04:24 PM	#32
Nightfyre MVP Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Helena, MT Casino cash: $3618849	She has a ring on in those pics... I'm sure her husband was pleased to see how his wife was spending her time.
Posts: 18,553