Movies

Judge tosses Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit against Blake Lively and New York Times

BBG News

In a major court verdict concluding one of Hollywood’s most anticipated legal disputes, a federal judge on Monday dismissed two significant lawsuits filed by director Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, against actress Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, The New York Times, among others. The judge determined that the extensive allegations, which encompassed defamation, extortion, and contract breach, fell short of meeting legal requirements.

The situation originated from a December 2024 New York Times article which presented sexual harassment accusations made by Lively against Baldoni during the making of a romantic drama. These allegations were based on a formal complaint she submitted to California’s Civil Rights Department. Baldoni and Wayfarer asserted that this article, along with Lively’s subsequent actions, were intended as part of a campaign to seize creative control of the film, exclude Baldoni from promotional activities, damage his reputation, and harm him professionally.

In simple terms, Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed all the arguments put forth, allowing the dismissal of a $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds, and others, as well as a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Times.

In the opinion spanning 132 pages, Liman ruled that the motions to dismiss have been accepted. For the time being, the legal team of Lively was denied their requests for lawyers’ fees and penalties as per anti-SLAPP laws in both New York and California.

In a statement, attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb declared the ruling as a significant triumph in the legal realm for Lively.

Today’s verdict was a full triumph and absolute validation for Blake Lively, as well as those who were drawn into Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Groups’ counter-lawsuit. They stated, “From the very beginning, we declared that this $400 million lawsuit was a fraud, and the court agreed with us. We eagerly anticipate the next phase of proceedings, which involves seeking legal fees, triple damages, and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and other Wayfarer Parties responsible for instigating this abusive litigation.

Baldoni and Wayfarer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the grievance she filed, Lively claimed that Baldoni behaved inappropriately through both physical actions and words, such as suggesting intimate scenes on the spot and making unwanted remarks about her looks. These accusations were vehemently rejected by Baldoni, who along with Wayfarer, asserted they were unfounded and damaging to his reputation.

In his ruling, Judge Liman determined that the article was protected as it involved a matter of public interest and dismissed all allegations against The Times. Furthermore, he disagreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion that a pre-publication email exchange between them and the paper constituted a legally binding agreement. According to Judge Liman, the emails did not contain language or circumstances that could reasonably imply a contract was formed. He stated that the emails did not provide enough evidence to suggest both parties shared a mutual understanding (a meeting of the minds) necessary for a contract to exist.

The court also dismissed the idea that Lively’s actions – such as her reluctance to endorse the film and her demands for workplace safeguards – equated to extortion or violation. Liman argued, “An employee has the right to request protections against sexual harassment at work without being labeled as an extortionist, even if these measures ultimately prove unnecessary.” Furthermore, he stated, “If an employer complies with such requests, it cannot then claim to be a victim of the employee’s unwarranted threats.

He stated: “Additionally, it was not claimed that Lively had a contractual duty to advertise the movie. Therefore, there’s no reason to infer that the value she provided by promoting the film, which was simply an exchange for the Wayfarer Parties’ decision to use her in return, was anything more than a fair deal.

As a movie buff putting things into my own words, I’d say: In my viewpoint, the excessive length of the plaintiffs’ documents – such as the 224-page complaint and the 168-page timeline exhibit – was heavily criticized by Liman. He deemed the timeline exhibit inappropriate and legally insignificant. Even though he opted not to remove the exhibit from the case records, he made it clear that he would choose to ignore its content instead.

In simple terms, Liman allowed the plaintiffs to make minor adjustments in their argument regarding Lively disrupting Apple and Sony’s marketing agreements. However, he discarded all other accusations permanently, implying that he believed the wider legal arguments were inherently problematic.

As long as there’s still room for an appeal, the decision serves as a clear and public setback for Baldoni and Wayfarer in their efforts to reshape the public perception of the controversy surrounding the movie.

Lively’s effort to dismantle the lawsuit has garnered backing from various advocacy organizations. These groups contend that the case poses a risk to established legal safeguards for individuals reporting sexual harassment and misconduct. Notable supporters like Equal Rights Advocates, Child USA, and Sanctuary for Families submitted supporting documents in Lively’s motion, expressing concern that permitting such claims could discourage survivors from speaking out and dampen open discussions about workplace abuse.

Read More

2025-06-09 21:31

Previous post Amanda Seyfried reveals the drug she did with pal Adam Brody when they were in their 20s
Next post Mecha BREAK brings high-octane mech battles to Android, with pre-registration now live