Blake Lively Faces Dead End in Justin Baldoni Feud: Judge Rules Out Emotional Distress Claims, Find Out Details
The ruling was shared by Judge Lewis Liman after back-and-forth filings by both parties.
According to the previously published reports, Lively's attorneys got back at Baldoni 's lawyers, who claimed that the mother of four tried to withdraw her lawsuit to hide her medical records.
The actress's team stated, 'As the Wayfarer Parties make abundantly clear in their Motion, Ms. Lively voluntarily agreed to withdraw her infliction of emotional distress claims on Friday, May 30. Ms. Lively did so in good faith to streamline the dispute in the ordinary litigation process, given the damages she otherwise anticipates recovering.'
Judge Lewis Liman's ruling
As for the new ruling in the Lively vs. Baldoni case, the judge mentioned that the actress is at a dead end in changing her mind over disclosing her medical records.
In the motion penned by the judge this morning, Liman stated, 'Lively's request that 'because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively's tenth and eleventh causes of action… the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice' is denied without prejudice to renewal.'
He further added that either Lively reaches an agreement with Baldoni over the filing with prejudice or has the court dismiss them without prejudice. Whichever way her team chooses, she can no longer present any evidence of her emotional distress.
The case between the It Ends With Us co-stars has been going on since December, months after the movie was released.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Roll recall: on Supreme Court and the Bihar SIR exercise
In what must be seen as a rap on the knuckles of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Supreme Court of India ordered it to publish the names of 65 lakh voters excluded from Bihar's draft electoral roll, and the reasons, following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. That it required the Court to compel the ECI to follow the basic principles of natural justice for these voters underscores the pressing lacunae in the institution's conduct of the SIR and the presumptuous and hasty manner of its implementation. There has been no consolidated list of the excluded electors whose names, the ECI claims, have been removed because they have died, or are untraceable or have fake/duplicate entries. No reasons have been provided against each name. Data analysed by The Hindu and ground reports have highlighted significant anomalies. A much higher number of women (close to 32 lakh) than men (close to 25 lakh) have been excluded despite more men having migrated, and recent death rates having been slightly higher among men too. Reports indicate that several voters have been wrongly identified as dead or had not been enumerated despite having valid voter IDs and proof of residence across areas. The Court's intervention now provides a meaningful way — the ECI deadline of September 1 to complete the filing of claims and objections is near — for such voters to address their anomalous situations. The Court will continue to hear the case on the SIR which has other problematic elements to it. The constitutionality of the exercise itself, conducted after the ECI's own summary revision in January, remains to be adjudicated. Also, the ECI still insists that enumerated voters in the draft roll are vetted by Election Registration Officers based on the availability of one of 11 indicative documents, which do not include the more universally available Aadhaar or ration cards. With the Court ordering the ECI to allow excluded citizens to file objections with their Aadhaar card and having nudged it to accept this document in two previous hearings, the ECI must now include the Aadhaar card as an identity document also. The Court's order also shines a light on the ECI's use of non-transparent means to conduct the SIR; it has made it onerous for civil society to parse the electoral rolls and it continues to use that ploy even now by refusing to put up the full list of those excluded and the reasons in one place. Universal adult franchise has been a cornerstone of India's democracy since Independence. The upcoming hearings in the case and the ECI's actions in rectifying its role in Bihar's SIR process will go a long way in assuaging serious concerns about the voter enrolment process in the country today.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Centre should not have asked President to issue Reference, says Kerala
The State of Kerala said the Centre should not have advised President Droupadi Murmu to issue a Presidential Reference, 'obliquely' challenging the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment prescribing timelines for the President and Governors to deal with State Bills, for the sole reason that the Union Council of Ministers did not see eye-to-eye with the Supreme Court verdict of April 8. 'The fact that the Council of Ministers advising the President disagree with or do not accept a judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court is no basis to exercise the power under Article 143 by advising the President to refer questions that are no longer res integra for this Court to decide. Such jurisdiction does not vest in this Court, nor can it be vested in it by the Council of Ministers under Article 143,' Kerala argued in its submissions prepared by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and advocate C.K. Sasi. The State said the questions referred by the President were no longer res integra (an unaddressed question of law). Kerala agreed with Tamil Nadu's stand that the April 8 judgment had comprehensively dealt with every single question of law raised in the Presidential Reference. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is scheduled to hear the Reference from August 19, 2025. The hearing would begin with Kerala and Tamil Nadu both raising preliminary objections before the five-judge Bench about the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. 'The power of the President to refer questions under Article 143 to the Supreme Court is contingent on the fact that 'a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise' and hence is not res integra. The questions, however, referred to this court ex facie show that no question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, as the very questions already stand conclusively and determinatively answered by the Supreme Court,' Kerala argued. Besides, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have invoked Article 141 of the Constitution. Article 141 mandates that law laid down by the apex court in a judgment, in this case the Tamil Nadu Governor case verdict, is binding on the Council of Ministers. An opinion rendered by a Constitution Bench under an advisory jurisdiction to a Presidential Reference would not supplant or override a binding judgment of the apex court. 'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by court in the Tamil Nadu case. It has thus accepted the judgment. The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference,' Kerala submitted.
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
3-year law practice must for entry-level exams to become judge: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday chose not to modify its earlier verdict that mandates a minimum of three years of law practice for law graduates to appear in entry-level judicial services examinations. The court said any modification could open a 'Pandora's box,' signaling its firm stance on maintaining uniform eligibility standards across the matter arose from a plea filed by a judge from Madhya Pradesh, who sought reconsideration of the May 20 petitioner requested that serving judicial officers be allowed to appear in judicial services examinations, taking into account their experience as judges. The original verdict, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry-level judicial services specified that a law graduate must practice law for at least three years before being eligible. The court, however, clarified that the experience gained during legal internships could be counted toward the three-year recent plea argued that sitting judicial officers, by virtue of their work in courts, have practical experience equivalent to practising lawyers and should therefore be eligible for the exams in other Thursday, the bench, comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, rejected the COURT UPHOLDS ELIGIBILITY, BARS SERVING JUDGES FROM APPEARINGThe bench emphasised that allowing serving judges to take the exams would disrupt the uniformity of eligibility and potentially create administrative and legal complications. 'What is wrong in Madhya Pradesh? we will not modify this. This will open Pandora's box,' the Chief Justice said while dismissing the Supreme Court's decision has reinforced the principle that judicial services examinations are meant for those who have spent a minimum period in legal verdict aims to maintain a clear distinction between law graduates entering the judiciary through practice and those already serving in the judicial experts have noted that the ruling will standardise entry requirements across states, preventing ad hoc eligibility the same time, it limits avenues for judicial officers seeking transfers or appearing in exams outside their current this judgment, law graduates seeking entry into judicial services now have a definitive guideline: three years of active legal practice is a non-negotiable court's decision underscores the importance of uniform eligibility standards for the judicial recruitment process and avoids exceptions that could lead to inconsistent interpretations in different states.- Ends
