News Mo. woman wins $5.8M in 'Girls Gone Wild' case - Page 5

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

**kysirsoze** · 04-28-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

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.

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.

**kysirsoze** · 04-28-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

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.

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

Valiant · 04-28-2012, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

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.

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..

**Lumpy** · 04-28-2012, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

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...

Quote:

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.

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

Papi · 04-28-2012, 10:57 PM

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.

Valiant · 04-28-2012, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

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.

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..

**Lumpy** · 04-28-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

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".

Quote:

"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...#ixzz1tPBH3Jpy

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...

Quote:

Defendants noted there were signs all over the bar stating how the footage obtained that night would be used. Favazza claimed she didn't read them. She also believed no one would be "stupid enough" to use the footage without her consent. http://news.yahoo.com/girls-gone-wil...215900618.html

Aries Walker · 04-29-2012, 05:06 AM

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.

**Saul Good** · 04-29-2012, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

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..

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.

Valiant · 04-29-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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..

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, 10:57 PM	#65
Papi Veteran Join Date: Feb 2006 Casino cash: $3905522	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.
Posts: 1,674

04-29-2012, 05:06 AM	#68
Aries Walker Back again, again. Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: York, PA Casino cash: $9503357	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.
Posts: 8,213