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

This thread is just TiTs. :thumb:

Pics or it didn't happen.

Need pics of said breasts to make a proper ruling.

Sounds like she's going to win. She was sexually assaulted, and they sold the video without her consent.

Sounds like the judge got to watch the video :p

So why can't I get called for jury duty on cases like this?

Sounds like the first trial was ruled in GGW favor cause there were signs posted all over the bar saying they were filming and exactly what they planned to do with he film.
I would think if you read that and didn't want anything to do with that, you would have just left the bar or not even gone in.

NO kidding :thumb:

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2...212c7b61b0.jpg

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7...212c7b61f0.jpg

That doesn't mean that people get to rip her clothes off, film it, and sell the video.

On an unrelated note, did the friend do the right thing in telling his buddy that he saw her on the video? If you saw your friend's wife flashing her tits on a GGW video from before they knew each other, would you tell him? Would you want to be told? (let's assume it was consensual by her, and no lawsuit would be coming)

I think the million dollar settlement more than outweighs any pain they did or did not truely suffer from this.

On another note, those don't look like million dollar worthy tittays... Do not want.

Bring 'er in for a look!

meh
Posted via Mobile Device

Looks like Angela from the Office:

http://facultyblog.eternitybiblecoll.../02/Angela.jpg

yes, a mongloid of sorts... one of the fuggliest GGW girls i've ever seen.

I wonder how much the people who pulled up her shirt had to pay....Oh yeah, NOTHING. Always find the richest person you can and sue them!

5.8 million for a photo of a pair of tits? That judge has balls with that ruling!

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

I think the lawsuit is BS. If you walk into a bar that has signage for GGW, you either, (a) accept that there may be a chance that your breasts will be exposed, or (b) hop your ass in your car and go to a different establishment.

Granted, yes, GGW does have women sign a waiver to help keep them from getting sued. However, in this case, participants exposed her breasts. I think that GGW should just be forced to edit out the scene in all future productions of the DVD.

Was it in a public setting when filmed? Did the guy that dropped her top work for ggw? if the guy was a randm person, then it is not ggw problem. It was filmed at a bar, she knew she would be on film if at the bar. Ggw is only at fault if their guy assualted her.

If the verdict stands, lots of people/paparazzi and companies are going to be sued.

Which brings up another thought...isn't that some type of crime? 'Cause if it isn't, my trips to the grocery store are going to become a lot more interesting.

Anybody got the video?

Pretty sure it's sexual assault. You should try it to make sure, though.

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.

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..

My question is if the jury favored ggw in the first case then what right does a judge have to not heed a jury ruling and retry a case.

NSFW.

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

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

This. Times 5.8 million :)

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

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. LMAO

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? :Lin:

Issues...

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.

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.

:thumb:

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

Oh, he's all of that.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

^

To clarify, I'm not completely opposed to her seeking legal action. Good for her if she thinks she can pull it off. But w/ her being in a bar w/ GGW filming, I just don't see how she could NOT know that her ta-tas could be exposed. She was a victim of her surroundings. For example, if you don't want to get shot, don't go to a bad part of town.

Did you even look at the pics? :spock: She's smirking. I'm sure she was trying to stay calm during the situation and play it off like it didn't bother her. However, if she was truly pissed, she would have had a different demeanor than what was portrayed in the pics.

The problem is you are going after the wrong person and so is she.. Was it as ggw employee?? It is not their fault it happened, they were filming.. She is not suing the guy that did it, she is suing ggw..

So if someone depants me at a bar or outside, some other random person videos it, uploads it to youtube and makes millions on the advertisement from clicks I can sue them??

And where did I say she deserved it?? Unless the person was a ggw employee, ggw did not anything wrong.. They were video taping live at a bar..

He is sticking to just one part of the story and not looking at all the other facts..

Just imagine all these lawsuits that can come out if this wins from youtube uploads from public places that embarrass people.. Remember do not sue the person who did it to you, sue the person who uploaded the picture/video to youtube or a dvd..

Maybe those guys that hit their buddy with a 2x4 and threw flour and water on him could sue Daniel Tosh for damaging his reputation..

:toast:So did it ever come up at the trial that she was engaged in underaged drinking and did the bar in question get fined for serving a minor? Just curious....

That should buy some nice beads

Holy crap! I didn't even notice that when I read the OP.

Good catch! :thumb:

Sure it was O'doulls.... Or she was holding for a friend tying her shoe...

If she isn't pissed about the incident itself then she has no reason to be pissed that it was put on the DVD.

Too late, she's already won the big bucks, the tall dollars, rolling in the dough, laughing all the way to the bank, living on easy street, shes made of money, rolling in the green, worth a bundle, well off, loaded, got it made, prosperous, in the money, she has the big kahunas, hit the payday, found the golden ticket, coming up roses, filthy rich, hit the goldmine, pelthora of riches, glutton of money, money over floweth, won the sweepstakes, hit the big score, and rich as king Midas do you need more descriptions?

LMAO No, sir. No need for more descriptions. I'm aware that she won. However, the company behind GGW is trying to overturn the verdict, so it sounds like the lawsuit is far from being over.

There is no situation you could laugh off in the moment, but would not want to be distributed internationally on DVD?

Also, to the people citing the sign as enough of a warning, I would see that sign and assume as long as I don't flash my (hypothetical) tits, they wouldn't end up on a DVD. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Maybe it wasn't the smartest place to drink, but that doesn't make it her fault.

I don't really see what the difference is in a bar full of random people seeing her tits and a bunch of random people seeing them on a DVD. Someone in the bar could've just as easily snapped a picture of them and posted them on the internet. Just seems odd that she is outraged about her tits being on a DVD and appears to have no issue with the fact that she was sexually assaulted.

Let's say that you're a woman and you go to a strip club w/ your husband. This isn't just any strip club either, we're talking full nudity. Before entering the establishment you notice a sign that states that females entering the club could be pulled on stage and stripped down.

Do you, (a) walk in and hope it doesn't happen, or (b) turn around and not chance having your reputation destroyed? I mean, hell, a co-worker or boss could be at that club. Awkwarddddd.

My point is, signs are posted for a reason. But, like I stated earlier, I do agree that GGW had no right to include her in the video because they didn't have her authorization to do so. If the verdict isn't overturned, then good for her. Perhaps she could use the money to get some color added to her areolas. :thumb:

I'm sure if someone snapped a photo and posted it AND she actually had some legal recourse, she would pusue it. I agree about her not having an issue with the assault, though.

I agree she could have made a smarter choice. Although, if this verdict holds up, I guess she couldn't.

But it is in a public setting.. There is no expectation of privacy, especially when you are at a place filming live video for ggw.. The only person she should be going after is the guy that did it to her, but she is not worried about that it seems..

And for her underage, I am sure that is not an issue, because it means she probably provided fake identification, maybe her drunk ass signed the waiver under a fake name..

The judges decision will probably be overturned.. Unless that guy was an employee of ggw that assaulted her, but why is she not saying she was assaulted..

According to what's in the OP, it was a chick...

/waits patiently for the "niiiiiice" comments from those that missed that tid-bit of info. :p

Say what you will about the incident, I'm just disgusted by the amount awarded. 5.8 million? People with serious bodily injury don't get that kind of money often when they sue. We're talking about a pair of tits? Seriously? And whoever said they made millions or billions off her is just wrong. No one's buying the dvd if it only featured this troll.

Seems like the contracting agency is in trouble then unless their contract stipulated yanking down girls tops.. Of course she is not suing for assault..

According to a few other reports that I just read online, she was dancing flirtatiously in the bar and this drew the attention of GGW to her. The contracted lady then proceeded to tug on her blouse, ultimately exposing her breasts. The original suit was settled in favor of GGW due to them claiming that by her dancing and such, she gave "implied consent".

In addition, I also read that GGW accepts either written or verbal, (on camera), consent. It wasn't until after she was exposed when she said, "no".

Edit: Ohhhhhh, and there's more...

:banghead:

In GGW's defense, that's a lot of money for a flash. If they had walked up to her with a check for a tenth that amount, I'd bet she would have done horrible things on camera and then walked home and happily cashed the check. (I know I would.) And it was foolish of her to ignore the signs, but she was twenty, and twenty-year-olds are foolish.

But. I have no sympathy for Joe Francis. Even if I didn't think he was scum, this is a pittance to him, and the only reasons he hasn't just stroked the check and moved on are publicity, and the hopes that another thousand girls don't come forward with their hand out, too. I have no problem with a company selling videos of hot girls flashing, but you've got to have some kind of respect for them, and he has none; he'll skim the very edges of the law, use girls up as much as he can, then toss them away with no regrets. He's been doing it for years.

Also, "implied consent" is bullshit, a variation on the "she was asking for it" defense. If I was the judge, I'd uphold it.

Yeah, I'm focusing on the part where she was sexually assaulted, filmed, and had the video sold without her permission by a company that makes billions by selling said videos.

Other then the fact that she is not suing for sexual assault..