Janice Griffith filed a lawsuit that drew national attention because the claims were tied directly to a staged stunt for an adult magazine photo shoot. The public record that major outlets reported focused on a single event date and a single alleged act. The case narrative centered on a roof-level toss aimed at a swimming pool. A reported injury followed.
Los Angeles Superior Court filings became the key anchor for the story after Courthouse News reported the suit on December 17, 2014. The report named Hustler Magazine’s publisher entity and Dan Bilzerian as defendants. The same report tied the dispute to an April 23 photo shoot. The report said Griffith was 18 at the time.
Media coverage stayed narrow after the filing of reports. Public reporting that remained accessible during research did not confirm a published settlement number. Public reporting also did not confirm a final court order that ended the case. That gap matters for readers because internet summaries often claim outcomes without verifiable support.
How the Lawsuit Started
A Hustler-related photo shoot set the stage for the claims. Courthouse News said the photo shoot date was April 23. The same report said Griffith alleged Bilzerian threw her off the roof of his home during that shoot. A foot injury followed, based on the report’s description.
Public attention began earlier than the lawsuit filing because LAist described a widely circulated video of the stunt. LAist said the video showed Griffith grabbing Bilzerian’s shirt. LAist described that moment as a possible reason the fall landed short of the pool and caused the foot to strike the pool edge.
A demand letter dispute surfaced before the lawsuit filing. LAist reported that Tom Goldstein responded to Griffith’s lawyer with a sharply worded letter. LAist reported that the letter argued consent and threatened countersuit tactics. That demand letter episode became part of the broader public narrative even though the lawsuit filing later became the formal legal event that mattered most.
Background of the Case
Entertainment shoots often rely on informal risk decisions that feel routine until an injury occurs. The reported facts tied to the Janice Griffith lawsuit fit that pattern. A planned stunt happened during a magazine shoot. A reported injury followed. A legal dispute then moved from private demands to a public court filing.
Courthouse News framed the lawsuit as a personal injury case. The report identified Hustler’s publishing entity as LFP Internet Group doing business as Hustler Magazine. Also, the report identified Dan Bilzerian as a defendant. The report described the allegation as a roof toss that caused injury.
LAist added context that focused on the lawyer-to-lawyer exchange. The story described the defense side as confident and aggressive. The story described the plaintiff’s side as preparing to sue after the injury. That combination created a public story that blended litigation posture with spectacle.
Key Allegations
Janice Griffith alleged an unsafe stunt caused injury during a photo shoot tied to Hustler Magazine, based on Courthouse News reporting. The report said the suit claimed Bilzerian threw her from a roof during the April 23 shoot. The same report said the injury involved her foot.
Public reporting that remained available during research did not provide a complete complaint copy that listed every cause of action and every legal label. A safe summary still exists because the reported core facts stayed consistent across reputable coverage. The story involved an alleged throw, a pool target, a short landing, and a foot injury.
A verified company response on the merits did not appear in the accessible record from the reputable outlets reviewed. LAist reported a defense lawyer’s letter that argued consent themes. A formal court ruling or verified settlement term did not appear in the sources reviewed.
Timeline of the Janice Griffith Lawsuit Case
Early Complaints and Consumer Signals
Media attention began after the video circulated online, based on LAist’s account of the incident becoming public and widely discussed. LAist described the stunt as a roof toss aimed toward a pool. LAist described the injury as a broken foot after contact with the pool edge. Public discussion grew rapidly because the event appeared to be entertainment content, yet it raised fundamental safety questions that ordinary readers could understand. Source type involved local newsroom reporting about the incident and the pre-suit dispute.
Company Response
A verified Hustler Magazine public statement about the claims did not appear in the reputable sources accessible to this article. A documented defense posture did appear through LAist’s reporting on the lawyer’s letter. LAist described the letter as asserting consent and shifting blame to the injured performer’s actions during the fall. Source type involved a newsroom report describing the demand letter and the surrounding dispute.
Court Filings and Legal Steps
Courthouse News reported the lawsuit on December 17, 2014, and placed it in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The report named LFP Internet Group, doing business as Hustler Magazine, and Dan Bilzerian as defendants. The report tied the alleged injury to an April 23 photo shoot. A public case number did not appear in the Courthouse News excerpt that was accessible during research. A public docket entry confirmed that later motions or a final disposition did not appear in the free public sources reviewed. Source type involved a courthouse-focused litigation report.
Judge Notes or Judicial Signals
A verified judicial comment, tentative ruling, or written order did not appear in the accessible reputable sources reviewed for this article. A responsible update requires restraint when the docket record cannot be verified through reliable public access. Source type involved the absence of a confirmable court publication in the reviewed sources.
Government or Regulatory Actions
A verified government enforcement action tied to the Janice Griffith lawsuit did not appear in the sources reviewed. A verified FDA, OSHA, state labor agency, or prosecutor action specific to the Hustler shoot allegations did not appear in the accessible record reviewed. Source type involved the absence of a confirmable agency publication in the reviewed sources.
Settlement Timeline
A verified settlement announcement or settlement amount did not appear in the reputable sources reviewed. Public internet commentary often claims results. Responsible legal news writing requires a verifiable court record or a reputable outlet confirmation. Source type involved the absence of confirmable settlement reporting in reviewed sources.
Current Status
Public reporting that remained accessible during research confirmed the filing and the early dispute details. Public reporting did not confirm an outcome through a verifiable court order or a reputable settlement report. Readers who need a definitive posture should rely on direct court database access for Los Angeles Superior Court civil records or a later confirmed publication by a top-tier outlet. Source type involved reputable early coverage and an incomplete public docket trail in accessible sources.
Additional Case Details
Los Angeles Superior Court remained the reported venue. Courthouse News identified the Hustler side defendant as LFP Internet Group doing business as Hustler Magazine. Courthouse News identified Dan Bilzerian as a defendant and described the claim as a roof toss during a Hustler-related shoot.
LAist reported a separate legal storyline that shaped public perception. LAist described the demand letter response as unusually sharp and unusually personal. That pre-suit exchange became part of the public record of the dispute, even though the lawsuit filing later mattered more for legal posture.
Disclaimer: All information in this article comes strictly from verified public sources such as competitor publications, court filings, government agencies, and reputable news outlets. Nothing is based on assumptions or personal opinions. For corrections or more details, please contact our team through the Contact Page. We never publish misleading or unverified information.
