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

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

meh
Posted via Mobile Device

[Papi]

Looks like Angela from the Office:

[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by Papi

Looks like Angela from the Office:

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

[scho63]

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!

[Bump]

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

[Lumpy]

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.

[Valiant]

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.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by scho63

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!

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.

[ArrowheadHawk]

Anybody got the video?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

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.

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

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

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.

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.

[Valiant]

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.

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..

[big nasty kcnut]

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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

NSFW.

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

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

NSFW.

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

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