Ryan Reynolds Flees! Blake’s ‘Co-Conspirator’ Drama Explodes!

On Wednesday, Ryan Reynolds, who is married to Blake Lively, departed from their home state of New York, with the heated legal dispute between them and Justin Baldoni still ongoing.

The Deadpool star, 48, looked stern as he made his way through busy JFK Airport with his assistant.

Reynolds, who reportedly feels remorseful due to his wife Blake, kept a black cap pulled down low over his face and carried a sizable shoulder bag.

In a casual, yet vibrant fashion, I found myself adorning a striking yellow hoodie, slim-fit trousers, and crisp white sneakers as I prepared for my flight – all the while, brimming with fervent excitement!

Reynolds’ airport appearance transpired a few days following Baldoni’s accusation of Reynolds being Blake’s accomplice, in response to the couple’s recent court action.

Since December 2024, the pair has found themselves entangled in a series of legal disputes with Baldoni, following Lively’s accusations of sexual misconduct towards her on the set of their movie “It Ends With Us.

In the movie, Lively shared the screen with Baldoni, who not only acted but also took charge as director and producer for the domestic violence drama, which was produced under his company, Wayfarer Studios.

In the spirit of upholding truth and justice, I found myself compelled to take legal action against Baldoni, whom I alleged not only for defamatory remarks but also for masterminding a ‘retaliation campaign.’ Unsurprisingly, his response was a $400 million defamation lawsuit, targeting Lively, Reynolds, and Leslie Sloane, my publicist.

Additionally, Baldoni took legal action by filing a libel lawsuit worth $250 million against The New York Times regarding their coverage of Lively’s accusations. However, all involved parties have refuted these allegations that were made against them.

Last month, the trio consisting of Lively, Reynolds, and Sloane submitted a request to terminate Baldoni’s lawsuit that they considered both vindictive and disjointed. In an impassioned declaration, Reynolds publicly criticized Baldoni as sensitive while emphasizing his role as a supportive partner to Lively.

On the previous Tuesday, the legal representatives of Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios labeled Reynolds Lively as an accomplice during their plea to Judge Lewis J. Liman, asking him to reject the dismissal petition submitted by the Deadpool star and his spouse.

Based on PEOPLE’s report, Baldoni’s legal team argues in court documents that Reynolds is misrepresenting the validity of the Wayfarer Parties’ First Amended Complaint (the ‘FAC’). The FAC clearly provides a solid basis for the Wayfarer Parties to accuse Reynolds, not just as a supportive spouse, but also due to his own actions and involvement in a conspiracy.

Additionally, it has been proposed that Reynolds would not be entitled to recoup legal costs from Baldoni under very exceptional circumstances if he were to be removed from the lawsuit.

Following statements made by Lively’s lawyers during their filing for dismissal in March, it was suggested that the legal actions taken by Wayfarer against Lively might result in costs of approximately $100 million for Baldoni’s legal team.

On the 3rd of April, a representative for Reynolds issued a response to Baldoni’s recent court action, as reported to DailyMail.com.

The representative stated that Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios acknowledge the obvious flaws in their lawsuit, which they consider to be baseless.

Additionally, they informed DailyMail.com that Reynolds remains supportive of his wife, maintaining her claims about harassment and retaliation.

In their latest statement, they allege defamation but fail to identify the person supposedly harmed, the specific remarks made, or prove that any real damage has been caused.

Unlike Mr. Baldoni, who constructed his image as a confident listener towards women, Ryan Reynolds genuinely embodies this character and will persistently back his wife as she confronts those who not only verbally attacked her but also responded negatively to her subsequent actions.

In simple terms across all U.S. states, including New York and California, this legal action not only won’t succeed but could potentially make the Wayfarer Parties responsible for Ryan’s costs and lawyers’ fees, as this case was considered baseless from the start.

Baldoni’s response to Lively’s dismissal filing was obtained by TMZ last Thursday.

Based on court documents acquired by the media outlet, Baldoni presented the judge with arguments explaining why the lawsuit filed against him should not be dismissed by the Gossip Girl.

Baldoni alleges that Lively orchestrated a complex character assassination plot, intended to tarnish the standing and professional lives of the Wayfarer group.

Baldoni asserted that Lively played an active role in the publication of each alleged defamatory remark, either by giving approval or authorization before they were made public.

Additionally, he claimed that Lively had told The New York Times a malicious and defamatory tale about a covert PR sabotage strategy, which was intended as retaliation for sexual harassment allegations, understanding well that the publication would share this untrue account.

He persistently argued that Lively harbored malicious intentions and claimed she was deliberately working to undermine his career in Hollywood.

Attorney Bryan Freedman, representing Baldoni, made a strong statement to TMZ. He labeled Lively as belonging to the high-profile group in Hollywood and accused her of attempting to establish a harmful pattern by seeking to dismiss Baldoni’s lawsuit.

Ms. Lively’s group of high-profile friends can’t stop my clients from seeking legal recourse to challenge her defamatory statements, asserted Freedman.

Ms. Lively is trying to establish a problematic precedent by excluding my clients from accessing the courthouse and penalizing them for exercising their right to be heard, a privilege guaranteed by the First Amendment. This freedom applies not only to Mr. Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties in this specific case, but also to all future Americans who find themselves falsely accused and seek justice within our legal system.

Freedman emphasized that this needs to end immediately, and we’ll persistently oppose any actions aimed at restricting court access and undermining our country’s Constitution for the benefit of those already holding power.

On Friday, Lively’s legal representatives countered by accusing Baldoni of attempting to muffle the voices of those who have experienced sexual harassment.

According to Blake’s lawyers, Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, Justin Baldoni – who is known for advocating for the voiceless – contends that the freedom of speech for victims of sexual assault and harassment should take a backseat to the legal rights of perpetrators, enabling them to sue their accusers ‘to destruction’.

Her legal team added that Baldoni, along with his attorney Bryan Freedman, are attempting to ‘eliminate’ a law that safeguards victims, and also aims to silence others from voicing similar experiences in the future.

In my professional perspective, I’d like to clarify a recent assertion made by Ms. Lively’s camp. Their latest statement seems to be a complex web of words that suggests they are feeling unsettled and resorting to inflammatory comments to divert attention from the truth. The facts remain the focus.

It’s quite obvious they aim to shift focus away from the substantial proof, such as receipts, official records, videos, and further evidence, all of which unequivocally demonstrate that no instance of sexual harassment occurred.

It’s intriguing to note that Miss Lively and her group have recently shown intense enthusiasm for the long-earned rights of the survivor community, a subject they seemed to avoid throughout their film promotions.

Instead, she concentrated more on her hair care and liquor items, which sparked an organic criticism at the time. She doesn’t require an investigation to discover who defamed her; a simple reflection in the mirror would suffice.

Lively, Reynolds and publicist Sloane filed to dismiss Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit on March 20.

According to court papers acquired by DailyMail.com, Lively’s lawyers criticized Baldoni’s “revenge-driven and disorganized” lawsuit as an “egregious misuse of the legal system that has no business in federal court,” requesting that all charges against her be dismissed.

Surprisingly, the records indicate that Wayfarer’s legal action against Lively could potentially lead Baldoni’s team to pay up to $100 million, thanks to a clause in California Civil Code Section 47.1 known as mandatory fee shifting. This provision is designed to safeguard individuals bringing claims of sexual harassment and similar accusations.

In the opening and conclusion of their defense, Lively’s legal representatives contend that the lawsuit against her should not be heard in a federal court, as there are legal safeguards designed to protect people who speak up about sexual harassment or file related legal complaints.

According to these records, the law forbids using defamation lawsuits as a means of revenge against people who have submitted legal complaints or voiced public opinions on issues like sexual harassment and retaliation. In simpler terms, it’s illegal to use defamation lawsuits in this way to punish individuals speaking out about such matters.

Fundamental values such as the ability to pursue legal remedy and the freedom of the media to cover it are deeply cherished rights, safeguarded by numerous immunities, like the litigation privilege and fair report privilege, which are unwavering.

In addition, by opting to base their lawsuit on California law, the Wayfarer Parties have proactively submitted their entire case to the protection granted by the California Civil Code Section 47.1 (‘Section 47.1’). This provision forbids any retaliatory litigation stemming from public disclosures of sexual harassment and related claims, such as those made to the media.

According to California law, if someone speaks up (without bad intentions) about issues like sexual harassment, their communication is protected as a privileged conversation.

47.1 states that if individuals successfully win a defamation lawsuit against someone for accusations made against them, they are entitled to receive their lawyer’s fees, punitive damages, and compensatory damages tripled (which is three times the amount decided by the jury as compensation for the plaintiff). This law applies to those who had a solid reason to file a complaint about harassment or similar accusations, regardless of whether or not the complaint was actually filed.

The law was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom after the #MeToo movement.

According to the records, it is stated that if the defamation lawsuit is dropped, Baldoni’s studio (referred to as the ‘Wayfarer Parties’) will bear all the financial responsibilities.

Additionally, Section 47.1 includes a provision that compels the parties associated with Wayfarer to cover not only Ms. Lively’s legal fees, but also triple and punitive damages if their defamation lawsuit against her is dropped. This means that in a spectacular turn of events, the Wayfarer Parties have unintentionally increased their own responsibilities by their malicious attempts to sue Ms. Lively excessively, potentially leading to even greater repercussions for themselves.

Given the stipulation about who pays the fees, these records indicate that Steve Sarowitz, one of Wayferer Studios’ co-founders, might unwittingly have to pay the $100 million he reportedly promised for legal expenses.

Steve Sarowitz might actually follow through with his warning to take legal action for $100 million against Ms. Lively, but there could be a twist in his approach.

In simpler terms, they argued that Wayferer’s First Amendment Complaint (often abbreviated as FAC in legal documents) was based on unlikely speculation and speculative conspiracy theories when presenting their case concerning Lively.

Instead of presenting solid evidence, the FAC tends to make far-fetched guesses and speculations about Ms. Lively fabricating her accusations. On one side, the Wayfarer Parties argue that Ms. Lively is an incredibly influential Hollywood star with the power, along with her prominent spouse, to seize creative control over the Film. However, they also contend that she was so weak in actuality that her only means of exerting power was by making sexual harassment claims a full year ahead as part of a complex, long-term strategy.

‘These two ideas are opposed to each other and cannot exist together at the same time. Even if these unusual ideas had a logical basis – which they do not – the FAC provides no compelling evidence to back up the claim that Ms. Lively ever questioned whether the misconduct she claimed actually happened, as she described it in her 17-point list, the disclosures made during the January 4th meeting, or her subsequent legal complaints.’

In fact, even though the story presents criticisms towards her, it repeatedly supports Ms. Lively’s sincere conviction that she was wronged, as well as her quiet, honest attempts to rectify the situation, not only for herself but also for others.

Lively’s lawyers described the FAC as a ‘harsh publicity tool’ used to ‘silence’ and discredit Lively by suppressing her assertions.

Essentially, the Filing Against Case (FAC) lacks any resemblance to a valid legal claim; it is, in essence, a strong public relations tool, serving the malicious intentions of the Wayfarer Parties to discredit and harm Ms. Lively for her allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. The court should dismiss this FAC and, as mandated by California law, proceed with further hearings to determine an appropriate compensation for Ms. Lively’s legal fees, triple damages due to the damage caused by this baseless lawsuit, and punitive damages against each member of the Wayfarer Parties.

In a statement acquired by DailyMail.com, Lively’s legal representatives, Matt Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, stated that this lawsuit represents an unjustified misuse of the judicial system, which is not appropriate in federal court. As per California law, it is now illegal to file lawsuits against individuals who decide to share experiences of sexual harassment or retaliation, whether through legal proceedings or media outlets.

litigation immunity, fair report, and sexual harassment privileges. Notably, the sexual harassment privilege carries a mandatory cost-shifting clause. This means that Steve Sarowitz, Wayfarer Studios, and others who filed baseless defamation lawsuits against Ms. Lively will be required to compensate her for damages. Essentially, their attempt to financially ruin Ms. Lively has backfired, as they have incurred more legal responsibility themselves, a consequence fitting their actions.

A representative for her commented: ‘It’s regrettable that, like many others, Ms. Lively is facing a lawsuit for defamation after sharing experiences of sexual harassment at work. This very situation has led to the passing of AB 933, the Act Regarding Privileged Communications Incident of Sexual Assault, Harassment, or Discrimination in California, which essentially reinforces Section 47.1 of the California Civil Code.’

Although Ms. Lively has endured hardships by voicing her concerns and pursuing legal action, it’s crucial for others to understand they possess safeguards. There’s a particular law in place that explicitly shields individuals from being suppressed or financially devastated through a defamation lawsuit, should they bravely choose to speak out.

In the records, Lively’s legal representatives contend that she didn’t intentionally make false statements about Baldoni, who is a public figure requiring proof of intentional wrongdoing (known as ‘actual malice’) when allegations are made.

According to the statement, Wayfarer’s FAC supports Livewire’s reports as she genuinely trusted them to be accurate.

Instead of asserting ‘actual malice,’ the Filing Against Claim (FAC) actually supports Ms. Lively’s claims: it accepts that she reported sexual harassment incidents which, according to the FAC, did indeed occur, and she genuinely believed her accusations were accurate. These admissions effectively dismantle the Wayfarer Parties’ defamation allegations.

The documents indicated that Wayfarer could not prove Lively had questioned the validity of her claims.

As a lifestyle expert, I’d like to clarify my stance on a recent matter. Contrary to the allegations in the CRD Complaint regarding sexual harassment and retaliation, the FAC asserts that these claims are unfounded. The points contested by the Wayfarer Parties, however, primarily revolve around technicalities in Ms. Lively’s description of specific incidents within her Legal Complaints, or worse, seek to rationalize the Wayfarer Parties’ actions—effectively implying that Ms. Lively was somehow inviting such behavior. I firmly believe that such a stance is unacceptable and goes against the principles of respect and dignity we uphold in our community.

As a result, the Findings and Conclusions (FAC) merely recount the same events as seen through the eyes of the Wayfarer Parties. This dual perspective may have some merit in a non-judicial setting, but here it serves to underscore the FAC’s complete inability to suggest that Ms. Lively had any doubts about the veracity of her own accusations.

Furthermore, it references a supposed dialogue via text message exchange between Justin and his crisis manager Melissa Nathan, where they allegedly concurred that Lively firmly felt she was correct.

In a particularly incriminating move, the FAC points to a text conversation between Mr. Baldoni and Ms. Nathan where they express their shared opinion that Mr. Lively genuinely feels he is in the right and considers these circumstances as unfair, according to the records.

In my fervent admiration for Wayfarer, I can’t help but point out that the documents reveal a glaring omission. They apparently fall short of proving that Lively and her crew were orchestrating a conspiracy against our beloved Wayfarer.

The document indicates that the argument presented by the FAC fails to convincingly allege a conspiracy among the Lively Parties, it asserts.

In simpler terms, it seems there are no credible claims or evidence presented that suggest Ms. Lively and her associates conspired to perform harmful actions against the Wayfarer Parties. The alleged meeting of minds to carry out wrongful acts is merely speculation, as such an event did not occur. All the complaint by Ms. Jones does is claim, based on belief rather than fact, that she offered something enticing to Ms. Lively, who was said to plan the destruction of the Wayfarer Parties.

Additionally, it mentions that the supposed collaboration between Lively and The New York Times, whose article on Lively’s initial grievance led to Baldoni filing a lawsuit, wasn’t considered illegal in legal terms.

In summary, it should be noted that Miss Lively cannot be held jointly liable with any other ‘Lively Party’ based on the civil conspiracy theory. This is because the FAC (First Amended Complaint) does not sufficiently allege an underlying tort, and merely coordinating with The Times is not considered unlawful as a matter of principle.

Additionally, they claim that their papers do not assert that Ms. Lively breached any contract or financial association.

As a devoted enthusiast, I can’t help but share this intriguing tidbit: It seems that after Lively’s allegations, powerhouse talent agency WME decided to part ways with both Wayfarer and Baldoni. Quite fascinating, isn’t it?

It is asserted that the documents do not provide proof that Lively actively damaged the relationship, and the main accusations revolve around her husband, who reportedly called Baldoni a ‘predator’ in a discussion with an executive at WME.

The unique accusations surrounding the rumored end of the WME partnership center on Mr. Reynolds’ alleged claim that the agency was associated with an individual accused of sexual misconduct, as well as his subsequent request for the representative to terminate their association with Baldoni at a later time.

The documents also hits back against Wayferer’s claims Lively extorted them.

The FAC doesn’t find a singular ‘threat’ as suggested by this theory but rather reveals that Mr. Baldoni welcomed Ms. Lively into the creative collaboration, expressed admiration for her work, and offered her numerous praises.

In a legal sense, while the Wayfarer Parties acknowledge that their ‘civil extortion’ claim is modeled on California’s criminal extortion law (as stated in ECF No. 121, page 46), they fail to provide any California court decision that supports the idea that this criminal prohibition empowers private civil suits. In truth, it does not.

I’d like to clarify that the FAC does not assert that I, [Your Name], have acquired any money or property from the Wayfarer Parties under false pretenses or through a wrongful threat of criminal or civil prosecution based on a fraudulent claim.

They also claim Wayferer did not state any damages related to their extortion claims.

The main argument behind the extortion accusations against the Wayfarer Parties is based on a hypothesis that Ms. Lively allegedly threatened to disclose unfounded claims of sexual harassment in a public manner, which is considered an ‘extortionate threat.’ However, this theory is flawed for several reasons. Initially, it relies heavily on the same concept as defamation, namely ‘injurious falsehoods,’ and therefore is deemed repetitive and not allowed under Blatty and its subsequent rulings.

In summary, since this theory is rooted in Ms. Lively’s allegations of workplace sexual harassment and the legal proceedings stemming from those claims, it cannot be pursued legally… Ultimately, neither in their initial filing nor anywhere else do the Wayfarer Parties accuse Ms. Lively of making threats to sue them for misconduct or demanding compensation or assets related to such a threat. For these reasons, this argument falls flat.

In simpler terms, the lawsuit ended by requesting the court to permanently dismiss all charges against Ms. Lively, refuse permission for any further changes to the case, and grant Ms. Lively all the requested relief.

In January, Baldoni along with his production company, Wayfarer Studios, initiated a $400 million lawsuit. Joining him as plaintiffs in this legal action were the CEO of his studio, Jamey Heath, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, and publicists Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, as reported by NPR.

The dispute between Lively and Baldoni arose following several months of fan conjecture about potential friction between them during the movie’s promotional phase. Notably, they did not appear together on the red carpet at the film’s premiere, and conducted separate interviews instead.

Read More

• Clash Royale Best Boss Bandit Champion decks

• Cookie Run: Kingdom Pure Vanilla Cookie (Compassionate) Guide: How to unlock, Best Toppings, and more

• ‘The Baldwins,’ Alec and Hilaria’s TLC show, addresses ‘Rust’ shooting and PTSD

• MAFS Star Jamie Marinos Spills Secrets on Her Steamy Romance and Dinner Party Drama!

• Meet Tayme Thapthimthong, the Breakout Star Who Romances Lisa in The White Lotus Season 3

• MAFS Couple’s Shocking Reunion

• Death in Paradise star shares ‘unfortunate’ update about the beloved series

• Beyond Joy Reid: MSNBC makes major schedule changes as it prepares for NBC News split

• Alabama Barker Accuses Bhad Bhabie of Hairstyle Theft in Ongoing Feud!

• Lauren Hall’s Dramatic Transformation Shocks Married At First Sight Fans!

2025-04-10 05:22