Movies

Was Justin Baldoni lying about Ryan and Blake? Legal expert reveals what judge’s dismissal of $400million lawsuit really means

BBG News

In the midst of my unwavering devotion, I share that the court has recently dismissed the $400 million countersuit I initiated against Blake Lively, which is a part of our ongoing legal dispute regarding “It Ends With Us.” This turn of events is noteworthy in our ongoing journey.

In a significant turn of events, the judge recently discarded Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively, Reynolds, The New York Times, Sloane (his publicist), and Vision (her PR firm). This development represents a substantial obstacle for the actor in his pursuit of a triumphant victory over the wealthy actress.

In simpler terms, what exactly is the implication of the verdict, and why did the judge arrive at this conclusion? Furthermore, does this decision suggest that Baldoni’s accusations against the couple, including his claims that Blake attempted to seize control over the movie and that her husband verbally harassed him, were baseless?

Importantly, even though the judge has thrown out the case, it does not imply that the judge is stating that Justin’s assertions are false. Instead, the case was dismissed based on technicalities related to the definition of defamation.

As a diligent student of law, I can share that, according to Jessica Welch’s explanation, at this point in time, the focus wasn’t on whether the accusations were truthful or unfounded. Instead, it was primarily about Baldoni failing to meet the essential requirements to substantiate a defamation case under U.S. law.

To keep up with celebrity scandals, fashion faux pas on the red carpet, viral photos, and trending moments, consider subscribing to our DailyMail Showbiz newsletter for all the latest updates!

As a devoted follower, I’m sharing that Judge Jude Lewis dismissed Justin’s lawsuit claiming defamation and extortion, stating that all the accusations made by Blake were enclosed in protected court documents.

Jessica clarified that in certain situations, privilege safeguards individuals who accuse another person from being held accountable for what they say. For instance, this protection applies to statements included in legal documents submitted in a court.

In this specific situation, Lively’s statements regarding Baldoni in her lawsuit towards him are shielded from potential accusations of defamation.

If she had shared those statements elsewhere, such as in a newspaper, online news outlet, or social media platform, there’s a possibility they might be perceived as libelous.

Instead, “Privilege” here refers to the situation where Blake could instigate a lawsuit against Justin, secure in the knowledge that he wouldn’t face a counter-suit for defamation as a result.

Consequently, it appears that Justin managed to prove that those statements were not protected and Blake was responsible for releasing them, despite the director’s concerns.

Apart from accusing Blake, Justin had similarly brought charges against The New York Times; both cases were subsequently dropped.

Jessica clarified: For Baldoni’s lawsuit against The New York Times, he had to prove that the statements were published with ‘serious negligence’, meaning either the NYT knew the statements were untrue, or they didn’t care enough to verify if they were true or not.

The Judge decided that the evidence was not sufficient to prove ‘actual malice’, which is related to the fact that the article provided a context beneficial to Baldoni, criticized Lively’s promotional activities, and emphasized Wayfarer’s refutations.

Meanwhile the legalities of defamation differ in the US in comparison to the UK. 

Jessica explained: ‘In contrast to the UK, where Reynolds and Sloane would need to prove their accusations are largely valid, in the U.S., it’s Baldoni who would have to demonstrate that these accusations are untrue.’

In this case, the Judge determined that Reynolds and Sloane believed their comments regarding Baldoni’s alleged sexual harassment were truthful.

Legal expert Laurence Weeks pointed out that the allegations against Reynolds, Sloane, and the NYT were dropped because the contested statements were considered “opinions” that a fair-minded individual could have reasonably made based on the information available when the statements were published.

In U.S. law, it’s valid for someone to claim defense against a defamation suit. Unfortunately for Wayfarer Studios, their case fell through because they couldn’t prove that Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Lively’s representative, and the New York Times didn’t truly hold these controversial views.

Judge Liman indicated that the Wayfarer Parties can submit a revised lawsuit, specifically a second amended complaint, by June 23, 2025. Notably, they will only be allowed to modify the claims related to tortious interference with contract and breach of implied covenant in this revised filing.

Jess clarified that if he makes changes to his complaint, the trial will primarily concentrate on more specific matters.

‘She stated that it’s yet unclear if he will act in response, but considering the amount of time, money, and attention this case has already attracted, along with the perception that Lively’s stance might have gained approval after Monday’s ruling, one would anticipate that he might seek some form of vindication for this highly visible disagreement.’

Importantly Blake’s case against Justin will still go ahead. 

Laurence made it clear that the rejection of one claim won’t automatically affect the final verdict in Ms. Lively’s lawsuit against Mr. Baldoni regarding sexual harassment.

‘Mr Baldoni’s defences to that claim remain and will be raised at trial, the matter proceeds.’

Regarding the latest court verdict, Michael Gottlieb, attorney for Blake, commented on CNN: ‘This day signifies that such retaliatory lawsuits, intended primarily to suppress and intimidate individuals who voice their opinions, are ineffective.’

1. These actions won’t fly. They are unacceptable to our legal system, and they won’t yield positive outcomes.

2. Such behavior will not go unpunished. It goes against the principles of our justice system, and it won’t lead to a favorable outcome.

3. Those actions have no place here. They are incompatible with our legal standards, and they won’t achieve success.

4. This conduct is out of bounds. Our justice system will not condone it, and it will not bring about victory.

5. Such deeds are off the table. They conflict with our legal values, and they won’t be victorious.

6. Those actions will not pass muster. Our justice system will not approve of them, and they will not lead to success.

7. This behavior is unacceptable. It defies the principles of our justice system, and it won’t result in a positive outcome.

On Monday evening, Blake made her first public comment since the news broke, issuing a potent declaration that contemplated the recent happenings.

She wrote on Instagram last week: ‘I joined forces with 19 groups a week ago, standing tall and firm in the fight for women’s freedom to voice concerns about their security.’

Similar to many others, I’ve experienced the distress of a counter-lawsuit, which also brought an unwarranted sense of humiliation intended to undermine us.

As a native Angelino and lifestyle guide, I often find myself reflecting on the privileges we each hold. Though the lawsuit levied against me was dismissed, it’s a stark reminder that many individuals lack the means to defend themselves in similar situations. Let’s strive to uplift one another and ensure everyone has access to fair representation and resources.

Lively, mother of four with husband Ryan Reynolds, declared her unwavering commitment to advocating for every woman’s power to express themselves, encompassing their personal safety, self-worth, honor, and narrative.

The actress from Gossip Girl took time to express gratitude towards the public, who have stood by her during the challenging year that passed.

In a heartfelt manner, Lively acknowledged her appreciation to numerous individuals who have supported her. While some of you are familiar to me, others may not be, but my admiration and advocacy for all of you will always remain unwavering.

Actress Mila Kunis, who’s been involved in a high-profile dispute with Justin Baldoni and whose friendship with Taylor Swift has been affected by it, decided to acknowledge organizations that had openly expressed their support during this widely publicized Hollywood feud on her list.

Listed among them, arranged according to the alphabet, were the California Employment Lawyers Association, the California Women’s Law Center, CHILD USA, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Equal Rights Advocates, Esperanza United, Her Justice, and Herunivercity Inc.

On Thursday, Lively pointed out what could be a sign of shifting events in the case, by criticizing Baldoni, stating that numerous women’s organizations have been leaving him en masse.

As an ardent admirer, I can’t help but share this exhilarating news: A grand total of 19 trailblazing advocates for women’s rights, children’s rights, and those combating domestic violence have each lent their powerful voices to four distinct legal briefs! This remarkable development was confirmed by a representative of the actress from Another Simple Favor, as reported to Daily Mail in an official statement.

The statement further clarified: ‘Everyone stands together in resisting Justin Baldoni’s efforts to undermine a law created for the safety of women who voice their opinions – all in an apparent bid to safeguard himself.’

According to Lively’s team, Baldoni seems to be deviating from his usual strategy as the complex court case unfolds, potentially inviting more attention and examination due to his previous public remarks.

Read More

2025-06-10 22:04

Previous post Will the GENIUS Act Bring Us Wealth or Woe? Find Out Now! 💰😱
Next post Unbelievable Corporate AI Token Reserve: You Won’t Believe Who’s Involved! 😲