Raquel Leviss’ restraining order against her “Vanderpump Rules” co-star Scheana Shay has officially been dismissed, it’s been revealed.
People reported Wednesday that Leviss — whose months-long affair with Ariana Madix’s then-boyfriend Tom Sandoval was recently revealed — was a no-show in court.
Leviss’ legal reps told the site in a statement: “Scheana and her attorney were notified from the reunion to emails that Raquel wasn’t moving forward with the RO.
“The court was notified by Raquel’s counsel that we were not attending and are not moving forward and we had filed the paperwork requested by the court clerk which is stamped received. Their attendance was to grandstand which was predictable….”
Shay had been accused of punching Leviss after the affair was revealed.
Shay’s attorney, Neama Rahmani, added in a statement, referencing Leviss by her legal birth name, “This isn’t reality TV. This is the real world and Rachel’s actions have real consequences. … We are happy that Scheana is now vindicated.”
Rahmani continued, “Scheana didn’t punch Rachel. Rachel didn’t get a black eye. Scheana pushed Rachel but only after Rachel grabbed her wrist, and Rachel did not suffer a concussion.”
READ MORE: Ariana Madix Comments On Tom Sandoval And Raquel Leviss’ Date After ‘Vanderpump Rules’ Reunion
Leviss’ legal team then said, “At least [Rahmani] finally admits there was physicality involved and Raquel stands by her initial statement that Scheana punched her in the face supported by photos of her bruised eyebrow bone and slashed eyebrow. (Not the dark circles that Scheana is trying to deflect towards).”
Sandoval had been dating Madix for nine years and they were still together when she found a NSFW video of Leviss on his phone.
The restraining order was still in place during the recently-filmed “Vanderpump Rules” reunion show, so Leviss and Shay had to film their parts separately.
According to Page Six, during the reunion, Leviss instructed host Andy Cohen to “serve” Shay with what were intended to represent legal documents. Shay’s lawyer, however, insisted the papers had “no legal meaning” and were simply a PR stunt.
