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

Yahoo

4 hours ago

In a sweeping decision capping one of Hollywood's most closely watched legal battles, a federal judge on Monday dismissed two high-stakes lawsuits brought by "It Ends With Us" director Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, against actress Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, The New York Times, and others — ruling that the wide-ranging claims, including defamation, extortion and breach of contract, failed to meet legal standards.
The case stemmed from a December 2024 New York Times article detailing sexual harassment allegations that Lively made against Baldoni during production of the romantic drama, based on a formal complaint she filed with California's Civil Rights Department. Baldoni and Wayfarer alleged that the article — and Lively's broader conduct — were part of a retaliatory campaign to seize creative control of the film, exclude Baldoni from publicity efforts and harm his reputation.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman rejected those theories in full, granting the motion to dismiss both the $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds and others and the $250 million defamation claim against the Times.
'The motions to dismiss are granted,' Liman wrote in a 132-page opinion, which also denied — for now — requests from Lively's team for attorneys' fees and sanctions under anti-SLAPP statutes in New York and California.
In a statement, Lively's attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb called the ruling 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 the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit,' they said. 'As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it. We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties who perpetrated this abusive litigation.'
Baldoni and Wayfarer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In her complaint, Lively accused Baldoni of inappropriate physical and verbal conduct, including improvised scenes of intimacy and unsolicited comments about her appearance — allegations Baldoni strongly denied. The Times article recounted those claims, which Baldoni and Wayfarer argued were false and defamatory.
In his decision, Liman found the article was protected reporting on a matter of public concern and dismissed all claims against the Times. He also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a series of pre-publication emails with the paper formed a binding agreement. 'The Wayfarer Parties plead in their complaint that 'the express written words' of the emails 'created an implied-in-fact contract,'' Liman wrote. But he concluded that no such contract existed, adding that the communications did not 'plausibly support an inference that the parties reached a meeting of the minds.'
The court also rejected the notion that Lively's conduct — including her hesitation to promote the film and her insistence on workplace protections — amounted to extortion or breach. 'Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at [the] workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion,' Liman wrote. 'If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee's wrongful threats.'
He added: 'There also is no allegation that Lively had a contractual obligation to promote the film; if not, there is no basis to assume that the value that she conveyed in terms of her willingness to promote represented anything other than a fair trade for the Wayfarer Parties' willingness to use her cut.'
Liman further criticized the sprawl of the plaintiffs' filings — including a 224-page complaint and a 168-page 'timeline' exhibit — calling the latter improper and legally meaningless. While he declined to strike the exhibit from the docket, he said he would simply disregard it.
Liman granted the plaintiffs leave to amend only a narrow part of their case — allegations that Lively interfered with Apple and Sony's promotional arrangements — but dismissed all other claims with prejudice, signaling that he found the broader legal theories fundamentally flawed.
While an appeal remains possible, the ruling delivers a decisive and public defeat for Baldoni and Wayfarer in their attempt to reframe the fallout over the film.
Lively's push to dismiss the lawsuit had drawn support from several advocacy groups, who argue that the case threatens hard-won legal protections for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct. Organizations including Equal Rights Advocates, Child USA and Sanctuary for Families filed amicus briefs in support of Lively's motion, warning that allowing such claims to proceed could deter survivors from coming forward and chill public discourse on workplace abuse.
Sign up for Indie Focus, a weekly newsletter about movies and what's going on in the wild world of cinema.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.