Mo. woman wins $5.8M in 'Girls Gone Wild' case

[DTLB58]

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

[TimeForWasp]

This thread is just TiTs.

[Chief Pote]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Bugeater]

Need pics of said breasts to make a proper ruling.

[Saul Good]

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

[DTLB58]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Need pics of said breasts to make a proper ruling.

Sounds like the judge got to watch the video

[Frosty]

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

[DTLB58]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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

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.

[DTLB58]

Originally Posted by Frosty

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

NO kidding

[Fish]

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by DTLB58

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.

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

[Saul Good]

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)

[Papi]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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.

[Simply Red]

Bring 'er in for a look!

[Simply Red]

she looks like a little troll girl. I'd pass.