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

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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.

^

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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.

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.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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

Did you even look at the pics? 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.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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.

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..

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Did you even look at the pics? 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.

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..

[Superbowltrashcan]

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....

[Okie_Apparition]

That should buy some nice beads

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Superbowltrashcan

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....

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

She was a 20-year-old college student in 2005

Good catch!

[Superbowltrashcan]

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

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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

[Fairplay]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I think the lawsuit is BS.

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?

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Fairplay

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?

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.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

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

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.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

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.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

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.

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.