In a broad decision that limits one of the most observed legal battles of Hollywood, a federal judge dismissed on Monday two high -risk lawsuits presented by the director of “ends with us”, Justin Baldoni, and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, of actress Blake Livel standards.
The case arose from an article by New York Times in December 2024 that details the accusations of sexual harassment that Lively made against Baldoni during the production of the romantic drama, based on a formal complaint that he presented to the Civil Rights Department of California. Baldoni and Wayfarer alleged that the article, and the broader behavior of Lively, were part of a reprisal campaign to confiscate the creative control of the film, exclude Baldoni from advertising efforts and damage his reputation.
The United States District Judge, Lewis J. Liman, rejected those theories as a whole, giving the motion to dismiss both the $ 400 million counter against Lively, Reynolds and others and the defamation claim of $ 250 million against the times.
“The motions to dismiss are granted,” Liman wrote in an opinion of 132 pages, which he also denied, for now, he asks the Lively team for the fees and sanctions of the lawyers under the statutes in New York and California against the demands that aim to silence or intimidate the people who exercise their amendment rights.
In a statement, Lively, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb's lawyers described the ruling as a decisive legal victory.
“Today's opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer holidays dragged their demand for retaliation,” they said. “As we have said from the first day, this demand for '$ 400 million' was a farce, and the court saw it just through it. We wait for the next round, which seeks lawyer fees, tripled damages and punitive damage against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan and the other Wayfarer parties that harmed this abusive litigation.”
Baldoni and Wayfarer did not immediately respond to a request for comments.
In his complaint, the lively accused of Baldoni of inappropriate physical and verbal behavior, including improvised scenes of intimacy and comments not requested about his appearance, accusations of Baldoni firmly denied. The Times article reported those statements, that Baldoni and Wayfarer argued that they were false and defamatory.
In his decision, Liman discovered that the article was protected by informing about a matter of public concern and dismissed all claims against the times. He also rejected the claimants' statement that a series of emails prior to the publication with the document formed a binding agreement. “Wayfarer parts declare themselves in their complaint that 'the express written words' of the emails' created a de facto implicit contract,” Liman wrote. But he concluded that there was no such contract, and added that communications did not “support plausibly an inference that the parties reached a meeting of the minds.”
The court also rejected the notion that Lively's conduct, including his doubt to promote the film and his insistence on the protections of the workplace, was equivalent to extortion or breach. “Even if it turns out to be unnecessary, an employee can insist on protections to [the] Workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion, “Liman wrote.” If an employer agrees, later he cannot claim to be a victim of the unfair threats of the employee. “
He added: “There is also no accusation that Lively had the contractual obligation to promote the film; if not, there is no basis to assume that the value she transmitted in terms of her willingness to promote represented more than a fair trade for the will of the parts of the Wayfarer to use her cut.”
Liman further criticized the expansion of the presentations of the plaintiffs, including a complaint of 224 pages and an exhibition of “timeline” of 168 pages, which calls the latter inappropriate and legally meaningless. While he refused to attack the file exhibition, he said he would simply ignore him.
Liman granted the plaintiffs who let only a limited part of their case amended, accusations that animated interfered with the promotional arrangements of Apple and Sony, but dismissed all the other statements with prejudice, which indicates that he found the broader legal theories fundamentally defective.
Although an appeal is still possible, the ruling offers a decisive and public defeat for Baldoni and Wayfarer in their attempt to rethink the consequences on the film.
Lively's impulse to dismiss the demand had resorted to the support of several defense groups, which argue that the case threatens the legal protections won by people who talk about sexual harassment and miscarriage. Organizations, including defenders of equal rights, US children and the sanctuary for families, presented Amicus reports in support of Lively's motion, warning that allowing such claims to proceed could dissuade the survivors of presenting and cooling public discourse on abuse in the workplace.
