‘Looksmaxxer’ Clavicular’s Legal Battle Takes SHOCKING Turn

The complaint as it stands now does not. include the sexual uh battery claim that. is the basis of the pending criminal. charges. It it's a totally separate. issue regarding the um injection of a. minor without her consent or parents. consent. >> A hearing just wrapped up in the lawsuit. involving influencer clavvicular where. he's accused of injecting a girl with an. unapproved drug. But as you'll see, how. do pending criminal charges, including.

rape, affect his civil case? Lot of. important details to get into. Let's. discuss. Welcome to Sidebar, presented. by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, so there was a hearing in popular. looks maxing influencer Clvicular's. civil case. Looks maxing is this idea of. how do you enhance one's physical. beauty, physical appearance. Now, this. is not his criminal case. This is a. civil case. This is a lawsuit. We've. been covering this. The social media.

influencer, real name Braden Peters, has. been sued by Alexandra Vasalevna. Mendoza. And this is about an alleged. incident that happened or allegedly. happened in November of 2025 out in. Miami. And according to this lawsuit, Peters attempted to kiss and seduce. Mendoza, which she rejected. Peters then. allegedly began a live stream on the. kick platform where he allegedly told. Mendoza that he wanted to inject her. cheeks with Aqualix. It's a non FDA.

approved fat dissolver. And according to. Mendoza, Peter claimed that he was. qualified to give the injection despite. lacking medical authority. And Mendoza. apparently didn't provide any legal. consent to receive it. Now, despite. this, Mendoza claims Peters did inject. her in both cheeks, that her right cheek. was perforated. Peters also allegedly. stated or suggested that meth had been. added to the mixture. And the lawsuit. claims that Peters and Mendoza saw each. other a handful of other times, including instances where Peters paid to.

let her into bars, bought drinks for her. despite her being underage, all under. the guise that he was helping her. career. Meanwhile, the following year in. 2026, this is when Mendoza claims that. Peters began campaigning to discredit. her reputation in what she said was an. attempt to get ahead of any misconduct. or alleged misconduct throughout the. relationship and that basically he was. responsible for her losing money. Now, you fast forward to October 8th and. there was an amended complaint that was. filed in Miami court. And here's where. we learned some new alleged details.

about this Miami incident from November. of 2025, including screenshots that were. allegedly taken from the kick liveream. where Peters allegedly appears to be. prepping Mendoza for this injection. And. the lawsuit alto and the lawsuit also. details comments allegedly made during. the live stream, including, "Bro, kick. the minor off. If she's 17, you could be. banned." And here's another interesting. part from the lawsuit. quote, "Before he. injected Mendoza, the defendant reading. the comments appearing on the streaming.

session says, "She's still a minor, you. ped bleep." He then responds, "I'm. bleeping 19 years old. Are you guys. actually that. 17 and 19? Societyy's actually cooked if. you think that's bad." He then proceeded. to inject the plaintiff." End quote. Now, this amended complaint also alleges. that after the first injection, Mendoza. appeared drugged on camera. So she's. suing Clvicular under five causes of. action. The first one is battery. So.

allegedly intentionally injecting her, causing physical and psychological. injury. Count two, intentional. infliction of emotional distress. That. this alleged injection was intentionally. reckless. It was outrageous. You're. talking about really going past the. bounds of what is acceptable, really. egregious conduct. She claims it caused. severe emotional distress, trauma, humiliation, nightmares, panic, fear, mental anguish. Count three, fraudulent. misrepresentation. So, this is about Clavicular allegedly.

not telling her the truth about certain. things such as that the vial and. syringes contained Aqualix and that the. substance he injected into her cheeks. was in fact that, that injecting that. product into her cheeks would melt the. fat on her cheeks. that was part of the. help with her online presence that he. had promised her, that he was qualified. to perform the injection, that the. injection was safe, that he could. properly inject her. So they say all. those were false representations. Count.

four is fraudulent concealment by Braden. Peters. That's relatively similar to. what I just talked about. That he. allegedly failed to disclose to Mendoza. that he was not a doctor or physician, that Aqualix was not FDA approved, that. this could have long-term complications. when injected into someone's face, that. he was not authorized to inject anyone. with any drug, medication, chemical, or. fat dissolving substance. that based on.

his own statements that meth or another. substance had been added to the. injection mixture. And then count five. is unauthorized publication of name and. likeness. Okay, for anybody out there. who manages a business, owns a business, runs a business, look, you don't need me. to tell you that running a business is. tough enough. The question I have is why. make things harder for yourself by doing. things manually, relying on dozens of. apps that don't talk to each other, right? That's where our sponsor ODU. comes in. ODU is an all-in-one business. management platform with a full suite of.

integrated apps that seamlessly connect. all your operations from sales and. accounting to manufacturing, even. shipping. ODU can automatically generate. professional, sleek looking sales. orders, invoices, vendor bills. It can. automatically assign sales teams, send. email updates through each sales stage, even use AI to pull reports that help. with your decision-making. for. manufacturing. Their apps can sync. inventory with real-time production and. purchase updates so you never run out of. stock. And when it comes time for. accounting, that's also fully automated.

ODU can create invoices, track expenses, and even summarize data with AI to save. you hundreds of hours. You know what the. best part is? You can choose your apps. and even build custom workflows, so it's. all fully tailored to your business's. needs. Take your business to the next. level by consulting with an ODO expert. today for free at odo.com/sidebar. So, how under Florida law, there's an. argument here that Clevicular allegedly. used her name, image, and likeness in. connection with a commercial live. stream, right? Making money, the replay.

content. He's making money off of it, profiting off of it, that she didn't. consent to it. So, in the end, she. claims that she's entitled to penalties, damages, that under Florida law, there's. royalties, there's exemplary damages she. could be entitled to. And for the other. counts, you're looking at compensatory. damages, right? Restore her to whole. There's also her reserving her right to. go for punitive damages, punishment. damages, and all of this could. potentially add up. Now, I want to make. clear that no criminal charges have been. filed against Clevicular in connection.

with this specific alleged November 2025. incident, this injection incident. And. this is entirely what this whole civil. case is about, the injection or the. alleged injection. And it gets confusing. because at one point in time there was. an entirely separate set of allegations. as part of the lawsuit. This is where. Mendoza had accused Peters of having sex. with her without her consent at his. family home out in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. And this is after he. allegedly supplied her with alcohol as a.

minor. She claims she was 17 at the. time. And this is what makes up the. criminal charges that Clavvicular is. currently facing out in Massachusetts. rape, administering a substance for. sexual intercourse, procuring alcohol. for a person under 21. But she decided. to drop those allegations in the civil. case. Her lawyer, Drew Moss, told NBC, quote, "Due to the pending criminal. charges in Massachusetts, Miss Mendoza. does not want her civil case to. interfere with that process." And we.

covered all of this in a sidebar, too, about why someone in her position would. do that. And it's up on our long crime. YouTube page if you want to check it. out. Now, in an email to NPR, there was. a representative for clvicular, Mr. Peters, Mitchell Jackson, reportedly. wrote, quote, "She files a lawsuit and. doesn't include sexual assault as. account. Then she amends it and adds it. a couple of months later." Clvicular. then filed a motion to dismiss fighting. the civil lawsuit because letter text. messages show she knew what was. happening with the injections and he.

refused to pay money. She and her lawyer. then go to police. And and I'll tell you. with what they mean by that is so if you. look at one of his filings in the. criminal case, it says, quote, "In. November of 2025, some six months after. the alleged encounter giving rise to. these charges, Miss Doe informed her. social media followers that she and Mr. Peters quote did a little video stream. together where he injected Aqualix, a. fat dissolving and body contouring. solution. It was really fun." She. described Mr. Peters to her followers as. super nice and shared that he sent me an.

Uber right after. And we've also talked. about these other alleged communications. between Clavvicular and Mendoza about. how she maybe wanted him as a a. boyfriend or romantic interest and how. it may or may not complicate the. criminal case uh in certain ways. But. now I want to talk about what happened. in court today. >> We're here on a motion to stay. Have you. guys uh resolved it in your meet and. confer or not? >> We did. >> Okay. So, I take it by that plaintiff, you're opposing a stay in of this case,

correct? >> Yes, your honor. >> Let me ask you, council, were you were. you asking for a 60-day stay? What is it. that was at some point towards the end. of your response or reply, you suggested. that? I don't know. >> Your honor, I think the suggestion is. some type of stay with uh status. conference updates. The criminal case is. obviously early on. It's just uh. initiated. This case is only about 3. months old. And so the request is a stay. for right now with a status report every.

at your honor's discretion 30 days, 60. days, whatever you think appropriate. We. just think we're going to have more. visibility into where the criminal case. is at in the next 30 to 60 days and that. could perhaps inform what to do with the. the continuation of this case. Um so at. this point we we. it's at your discretion, judge, but. we're thinking a stay for right now. 30. days, we come back before you and let. you know. >> Has this gentle has this gentleman been. formally charged? >> Yeah, there is. >> there is a criminal charge, your honor.

And he his arraignment was about two. weeks ago, I think. >> And when is it for trial? >> I am not sure what the trial setting is. >> There's. >> um I I can find out while we're on this. hearing. Um Mr. Estabbon will help me. with that. Um there is a motion to. dismiss that was filed by his criminal. counsel um based on I think we attached. it to our reply. The hearing date for. that motion is November 17th. So there. will be some more visibility into what's. happening at least after that date.

>> Okay. So in this hearing between the. judge and the attorneys for both sides, you hear how Clvicular's attorney is. talking about a stay, right? A pause of. the civil case. And that can get. complicated by the criminal case, even. though we're talking about different. alleged incidents. Now, by the way, we. covered his arraignment, which you heard. about. We cover that in a separate. sidebar, too, if you want to check that. one out. So, now I want you to hear from. attorney Moss, who represents Mendoza, arguing why a stay, a pause, is not.

appropriate. Your honor, there's their. motion um mostly cites federal law and. the law in Florida is that there is no. um reading from the Spiegel v Rhoden. case which is 236 Southern 3rd498. that there is no per se rule BA case. when they're pending criminal. proceedings. A a similar argument was. made by the defendant, but they hadn't. filed a motion to sever early in the. case, and your honor denied that. And.

what you said was, "Raise the fifth, and. as the civil case gets closer to trial, then I'll decide at that time whether to. sever the case." The same argument goes. here. There's nothing prevents us from. doing discovery. If we get closer to trial. and the criminal case is still pending, then maybe. >> part of the discovery your desire to. depose a defendant. >> Excuse me, your honor.

>> Isn't part of your discovery your desire. to depose a defendant? >> Yes. Because the the complaint as it. stands now does not include the sexual. uh battery claim that is the basis of. the pending criminal charges. It's a. totally separate issue. regarding the um. injection of a minor without her consent. or parents consent with a unapproved. substance by a individual who's not. licensed. >> So that that has nothing to do with the.

criminal charges that are pending up in. um in Massachusetts. So that our discovery on that issue. should not be hampered by the criminal. case. you your. >> your honor, un unless you I I have quite. a bit to say obviously on this issue. It's very important to our client. I. have about 15 to 20 minutes of things I. would like to say. I don't want to jump. on whatever your thinking is because. obviously you have some targeted. questions, but I would like to run. through some issues if that's uh if.

that's acceptable. >> I am I am going to give you a 60-day. stay. Mhm. Uh, and. I expect to see you and then as soon as. that stay is up, >> and again emphasizing two different. cases here, two different alleged sets. of incidents. But in the end, the judge. grants a 60-day stay, but the judge. gives a warning. >> And you better have some. information for me. I am not inclined to. stay this case. As you know, the Florida.

Supreme Court has imposed certain. obligations on my part and I intend to. comply with them. Okay. Uh, among the. many obligations I have is that I have. to try the obligation to try this case. within 18 months from filing. So, at some point I I'm going to fulfill. my obligations to the Supreme Court and. to the parties in this litigation, but. I'll give you 60 days to get your ducks. in order. >> Yes, your honor. And I understand that. And just so the record is clear, we do. believe that while you do have. obligations for the 18 months, this is a.

very important issue that uh it's it's. an issue about his fifth amendment. It's. an issue about whether or not he's going. to forfeit a defense in the civil case. by invoking the fifth amendment. And so. we just want to be clear that if we come. before you in 60 days and there are. different issues, we want to reserve all. rights obviously. But I appreciate your. honors your honor's holding. All right. All right. So, submit an order to that. effect. And I guess I'll see you all at. the end of the 60-day period. >> All right, real quick. I have an. announcement for all of you out there. who have supported me over the years,

supported the projects I've been a part. of. First of all, you guys are the best. Thank you so much. But I thought, why. don't I switch things up? Why don't I. let you ask me the questions for a. change, right? So, what we're doing is a. few fans are going to get to meet with. me virtually, one-on-one to ask about. anything, the cases I've covered, behind. the scenes, at Sidebar, Prime Prime, really anything you've always wanted to. know. So to enter, you sign up for Long. Crime Plus. You click the link below. You submit your question for a chance to. be featured in an exclusive Just Ask. Jesse special the week of Thanksgiving.

And right now, by the way, you can get. 25% off an annual Long Crime Plus. subscription with promo code Just Ask. Jesse. It's just $44.99 for the entire. year. So, I'm really looking forward to. this. Hope you can be a part of it and. I'll see you then. So, status conference. has been set for 60 days out. I want to. talk about this. I want to bring in. litigator trial attorney Richard. Showenstein to get to the bottom of. this. Rich, thanks for taking the time. Why is his stay important in a case like. this? Why is it important for clvicular?

>> Because he has uh both criminal and. civil proceedings ongoing. So the reason he sought to stay is. because he's got to deal with his. criminal case. And as a general matter, when you have civil and criminal. litigation pending about the same thing, the criminal case goes first. But that's. true even if they're different. allegations. Yes, you have the same.

alleged victim in both cases, but as. we've talked about, the alleged sexual. assault is not part of the claims in the. civil case. So, you even heard that a. little bit of a discussion back and. forth. What's the issue? >> Right. So, the plainif tried to deal. with this situation by dropping the. sexual assault allegation out of the. complaint and taking it out of the case. Here's the problem. There's a there's a.

well, there's two problems. The first. problem is even if she's no longer. claiming sexual assault, she's still. talking about the same interaction. with the defendant, there's still a lot. of overlap in how they got together, what happened while they were together, did he defraud her, did he, you know, commit other acts against her? There's. still a lot of overlap. So, that's a. problem. But the real problem is in a.

criminal proceeding, he has the right. not to testify. He can take the fifth. amendment and not say a word. In a civil. proceeding, he doesn't have that right. And if he invokes that right in a civil. proceeding, it is consequential. It. hurts his defense. In a criminal. proceeding, if you invoke your fifth. amendment right, it's not supposed to. hurt you. Although sometimes it does, but it's not supposed to. C. >> can you explain that? So, you're saying.

if in a deposition, right, in this case, and he doesn't want to say anything that. could jeopardize his rights in the. criminal case, even, you know, like you. said, how he met her, the circumstances, their relationship. You're saying at a. trial, uh, her defense, her her. attorney, her plaintiff's attorney could. say, "He invoked the fifth jury. What do. you make of that? He has something to. hide. Is that how it could potentially. be used against him in a civil case? Because I wonder if his attorney could. be like, "Of course he invoked the. fifth. He's subject to that." Actually,

I mean, if you if you get all the if you. get all the way to trial in a civil. case, you can call the defendant to the. stand. I call clvicular. and then he comes up to the stand and. you ask him a question and he takes the. fifth amendment right in front of the. jury. Right? It's not shielded from the. jury in the same way it is in a criminal. case. So you have much more ability in. the civil case to make use of the fact.

that he refuses to answer certain. questions. It is prejuditial to have to. testify in a civil case while you're. still under prosecution. And I know it's. I know they've tried to make it. different, but I don't think it's. different enough. That's my own view. I. looked at the docket. I looked at the. complaint here. I looked at the. allegations. I still think there's. enough overlap here that unless you had. a really good reason, you would want to.

stay the civil case until you figure out. the criminal case. >> Now, let me ask you this. The only. circumstance that you can imag maybe. maybe I can imagine in which in a civil. case he wouldn't invoke the fifth is if. the criminal case goes first and he's. acquitted or the charges are dismissed. with uh with prejudice they can't be. refiled. Is that when he would feel safe. to actually say whatever it is that he. wants to say in a civil case, >> right? when he's no longer under. jeopardy, meaning when he when the. criminal case is over one way or.

another, I guess not with a conviction. because then it's still potentially. under appeal. But whenever it's resolved. or if he's found innocent, then the. civil case can go forward. And we see. that a lot in these situations where. there are dual proceedings, you know, that the civil case doesn't really get. started until the criminal case is over. Is there a strategy here from what you. saw today? Are you seeing uh Mendoza and.

her attorney? Is there an advantage for. them that they want to take this to. trial sooner rather than later? Is there. an advantage? I mean, is that what. you're getting at? I mean, the fact that. they got rid of the sexual assault. allegations in the civil case, it seems. they they don't want to stay. They want. this to go forward. Judge said, you. know, there's that 18month rule, I. suppose, in terms of when this can go. forward. But you tell me, is there an. advantage for them to take this to. trial, a civil case sooner rather than. later? Well, if you're if you're prosecuting a. civil case, you always want to get to. trial sooner rather than later. It's.

always better. Evidence doesn't get. evidence is not like wine. It doesn't. get better over time. If you're relying. on witnesses and documents, you want to. move forward. Also, if you're seeking. money, you want to move forward. And you. don't know what's going to happen with. this guy and whatever his wealth is. I. don't know if there's insurance. involved. But when you're a civil. plaintiff, generally speaking, you are. pushing to get to trial as soon as. possible. That is sort of strategy.

number one if you're a civil plaintiff. >> Yeah. And I'm curious, you know, when. she were to testify in a criminal case, could they bring in the fact, um, Miss. Mendoza, is it true that you filed a. lawsuit against my client, even though. the injection allegations are not part. of the criminal charges? Can she be. questioned about that? Can her. credibility be impeached because of. that? >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I that I.

assume she would be asked that if she. took the stand in a criminal case. And. if you're a criminal prosecutor, you. would rather your witnesses wait to. bring their civil claims until after the. criminal trial for exactly this reason. But I think she could be questioned. about that for credibility even though. she has withdrawn that part of her civil. case. >> I wonder if a way to protect her from. that kind of credibility issue is can be. like imagine the civil case already went.

to trial and she was there was a verdict. in her favor. should be like, "Yeah, and. the jury sided with me." Next question. >> Yeah. Well, that that would protect her, but that's very unlikely to happen. I. think also if you're the prosecutor. putting her on the stand, you want to. bring up in her testimony that she's. started a lawsuit, right? When you have. a bad fact like that, you often bring it. out. You know, you were so upset that. you've sued him. Correct. Correct. And. now it's out and it's harder to.

cross-examine her about it. But she. could also say, "Yeah, my civil case is. different than the criminal allegation, so I have nothing to gain from a guilty. plea here.". >> She can she can say that, but that's. that is a nuanced point that is probably. too much for the jury. The juryy's going. to understand that she is suing him, that she's unhappy. The jury may not. care, but you know that it would be a. point to to go over at trial. And just. to go back for a second, so she's suing. him for five causes of action. Battery,

intentional infliction of emotional. distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unauthorized. publication of name and likeness. What. do you make of those uh claims? And by. the way, this was an amended complaint. Um it's different than I think what you. and I maybe even initially spoke about. when it was first filed. They've they've. uh the causes of action now have changed. a bit. What do you make of those in. relation to the. >> injection? There's a there's there's an. undercurrent. There's a fundamental.

question in the case is is she was she a. willing participant or did he take. advantage of her? Did he trick her into. this? Did he, you know, do things to her. that she didn't want done to her? Did. she lie to him? Did he lie to her? I. mean, uh, that is at bottom what the. case is about. And I don't know, you. know, I don't have any view of the. evidence on that because I haven't. watched her testify. I haven't watched. him testify. But you can see how it.

would be hard to to get to the bottom of. that case if he can't testify. I mean, there's still an assault allegation in. the case. It's just not a sexual assault. allegation. So, there's crossover there, right? >> Yeah. And and look, there also is a. question of her credibility throughout. this story in the sense that with. respect to the injection alleged. injection incident, I mentioned this. before. She allegedly posted online. about how she had this fun like. streaming session with him about the.

injection in terms of the sexual assault. allegations. There's questions about. whether or not she wanted to be in a. relationship with him. Do you think that. she has credibility issues or does this. go to a longer a different kind of theme. that we've talked about in other cases. that someone can be victimized and yet. maintain a relationship with the person. who abused them? >> Yeah, I think both of those are true. I. think there are things here that could. be potential credibility issues for her.

based on but they they kind of go back. to that central theme of the case which. is was she a willing participant or not. If you believe she was a willing. participant, she has no credibility. And. I guess if you believe she has no. credibility, she was a willing. participant. But it is true. The other. thing you say, which is we we know now. in 2026, and we've known for a long time. that sometimes victims. don't understand that they're victims.

right away or or can't come to grips. with it or don't deal with it in the. same way. And so their initial reaction. doesn't mean they weren't victimized. We. we understand the psychology of that. now. And it could be that she said. things immediately or at the time that. made it seem like she wasn't the victim, but she still was. >> So yeah, I mean, I think it's. interesting. We'll see how this shakes. out, where it goes. As I mentioned in a.

previous sidebar, he filed this motion. to try to dismiss the criminal charges. We'll see if that happens. see how it. affects the civil case. But Rich. Showenstein, thanks so much for taking. the time. Appreciate it. >> Always a pleasure. See you soon. >> That's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.