Movies

Blake Lively moves to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s countersuit, citing California law on misconduct claims

BBG News

In a recent turn of events in the intense legal dispute concerning “It Ends With Us,” Blake Lively has attempted to have Justin Baldoni’s defamation counterclaim dismissed. This is based on a California law that shields individuals who disclose accusations of sexual misconduct from being sued in retaliation.

In a court filing made on Thursday, lawyers for Lively contend that Baldoni’s accusations should be discarded based on Assembly Bill 933, a California law amended in 2023, which offers immunity to individuals who speak out about harassment, assault, or discrimination. This protection is extended unless they acted with malicious intent. If the court accepts this motion, Baldoni’s allegations would be dismissed, and he might be obliged to reimburse Lively for their legal expenses.

The proposed legislation forbids using defamation lawsuits as a means of retribution against people who have filed legal complaints or spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation. This is emphasized in the motion, particularly referring to the recently passed California law that safeguards accusers from such tactics.

The argument put forward suggests that Baldoni’s counterclaim is vindictive and lacking in legal merit, labeling it as “a public relations tool, serving the Wayfarer Parties’ malicious agenda to discredit and harm Ms. Lively for speaking up against sexual harassment and retaliation.

Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, lawyers representing Lively, stated that this lawsuit represents an excessive misuse of legal proceedings which should not be tolerated in federal court. They explained that under California law, it is no longer permissible to sue individuals who choose to report sexual harassment or retaliation, whether through a court case or the media.

In my perspective, I’d like to point out that AB 933 incorporates compulsory fee-shifting clauses, which could potentially obligate Baldoni and his allies to cover my legal expenses should the court rule against them. Essentially, in a rather ironic turn of events, the Wayfarer Parties have inadvertently increased their own responsibilities by their relentless pursuit to sue me excessively.

As a passionate cinephile, I find myself compelled to share my insights on the recent developments in the intense legal and public relations battle that ignited between me and Baldoni, my co-star and director on our romantic drama “It Ends With Us,” which he helmed last year. On December 20th, I filed a complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department, and shortly afterward, a lawsuit in the federal court of New York was initiated. The allegations leveled against Baldoni include sexual harassment and misconduct during the film’s production. In my legal action, I claimed that he coerced me into more nudity than initially agreed, introduced unscripted intimate scenes, and reacted with a defamatory campaign when I voiced my concerns.

Baldoni disputed the accusations and retaliated by filing a $250-million defamation lawsuit against Lively and The New York Times, who published her allegations. A few weeks later, he counter-sued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist, Leslie Sloane, for $400-million. He accused them of collaborating to tarnish his reputation and seize control of the film from him. His counter-suit asserts that Lively and her team masterminded a smear campaign against him, making false misconduct claims, disseminating defamatory statements to the media, and leveraging their influence to persuade the studio to oust him from the project.

In the ongoing legal disputes, a crucial point of contention has emerged: which state’s laws are applicable. Baldoni’s legal team argues that California’s laws should be applied due to the alleged damage to his reputation and finances in this state, where he resides and operates his production company, Wayfarer Studios. Furthermore, they have filed a counterclaim stating issues such as false portrayal, invasion of privacy, and civil extortion, which are recognized under California law but not in New York. In a recent court document challenging Sloane’s motion to dismiss the charges against her, Baldoni’s attorneys stated, “The laws of California should be applied to rectify the harm experienced in California by California residents and their affiliates.

Through her court action in the Southern District of New York, Lively signaled that she believed this district was the right place to handle her dispute. Interestingly, in her recent submission, she employs California law as a means of countering Baldoni’s accusations of defamation.

In October 2023, AB 933, a new law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, was put into effect to shield individuals from legal action due to defamation claims. This protection is granted when one speaks about issues such as sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, under the condition that they did not intentionally lie or were unaware of the truth they were presenting. In simpler terms, this means that as long as someone didn’t knowingly make a false statement or act carelessly with the truth, they will be protected from defamation lawsuits regarding these sensitive topics.

The legislation received support from organizations such as Equal Rights Advocates and the California Employment Lawyers Association, who contended that defamation lawsuits were often used to muzzle survivors speaking out about misconduct. Proponents maintained that the enactment of this law was crucial to shield victims from powerful figures exploiting the legal system in retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.

Lively’s team framed the legal battle as part of that broader effort.

It’s regrettable but not surprising that Ms. Lively faces a defamation lawsuit after she bravely reported workplace sexual harassment, a situation not unfamiliar to many. This very reason prompted California to pass AB 933… Although Ms. Lively has endured hardships by voicing her concerns and pursuing legal action, it’s crucial for others to understand they have safeguards in place. There is a law specifically designed to shield them from retaliation or financial ruin through defamation suits, simply because they found the strength to speak up.

Law AB 933 not only safeguards specific statements from libel suits but also offers monetary compensation for defendants who face reprisal lawsuits. In cases where the defense prevails, they can be compensated for attorney fees and court costs. Furthermore, if a court determines that the lawsuit was filed in retaliation, the defendant may seek triple damages – up to three times the actual harm sustained.

Despite not explicitly contesting the use of AB 933 against him, Baldoni’s legal team has made it clear in their counterclaim that Lively acted maliciously and knowingly spread false information. They also suggest that her choice to publicize her accusations with The New York Times before formally filing a complaint indicates an intention to damage Baldoni’s career rather than just report misconduct.

The decision made by the court regarding Lively’s motion could extend its impact beyond just this dispute. If the judge rules in her favor, it might establish a pattern for how AB 933 is interpreted in future defamation cases – notably in Hollywood, where lawsuits concerning reputation damage have become more frequent following the #MeToo movement.

Read More

2025-03-20 20:01

Previous post Adolescence’s Stephen Graham breaks down in tears recalling emotional moment with his dad
Next post Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 Update 1.022 Fixes Room Renting Issue, Removes New Game From Pause Menu