Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni feud: Judge rules in favour of It Ends with Us director, her distress case faces setback
A dramatic development took place in the legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. A federal judge has ruled in favour of Justin, dismissing Blake's claims of emotional distress in their ongoing lawsuit. This decision, which could have significant implications for the future of the case, comes just ahead of the trial set to begin in March 2025, as per Deadline. (Also Read | Blake Lively makes a shocking move in her legal battle against Justin Baldoni, seeks to drop emotional distress claim)
The lawsuit, which centres around the making of the film It Ends with Us, includes a series of allegations from Blake against Justin and his production company, Wayfarer Studios. Blake had initially sought to include emotional distress claims in the lawsuit, but recently moved to withdraw these claims.
However, Judge Lewis J Liman of the Southern District of New York shut down Blake's request on Tuesday, ruling that the claims would not be dismissed without prejudice unless both parties agreed to the terms.
In a succinct order, Judge Liman wrote, "The motion to compel ... is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn."
According to Deadline, he further clarified that Blake's request to have the claims dismissed was denied "without prejudice to renewal," meaning that Blake's legal team would need to file a formal motion for dismissal if they wish to proceed with that course of action.
The judge's ruling added further weight to the situation by stating that if Blake's emotional distress claims are not dismissed, she would be precluded from presenting any evidence related to emotional distress in the case.
"For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Blake from offering any evidence of emotional distress," Judge Liman stated, as quoted by Deadline.
Blake's legal team, led by attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, responded to the ruling with a statement expressing their disappointment with the outcome.
As per Deadline, they emphasised that Blake was still pursuing emotional distress damages through other claims in the lawsuit, including allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation.
"The court denied Wayfarer's motion," said Blake's lawyers in their statement, adding, "He told the parties to continue their discussions about the technicalities of how two of the 15 claims will be voluntarily dismissed. Ms Lively has offered to dismiss those claims because they are no longer necessary, and she will continue to pursue emotional distress damages through other claims in her lawsuit."
The lawyers also accused Justin and Wayfarer Studios of retaliatory tactics, arguing that these actions could expose them to significant legal and financial repercussions under California law.
"This is exactly where both parties were before the Baldoni-Wayfarer Parties rushed to file this utterly pointless motion to compel, all searching for yet another press moment," they added, as quoted by Deadline.
The case between Blake and Justin began making headlines in December 2024 when Blake filed a formal complaint accusing Justin and his associates of sexual harassment and retaliation.
The complaint, filed with the California Civil Rights Department, was followed by a defamation and extortion lawsuit from Justin against Blake, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their public relations team.
As the legal conflict unfolded, the situation grew more complex, with multiple lawsuits filed on both sides.
Blake's legal battles have included accusations of mistreatment during the production of It Ends with Us, a film that was marketed as addressing serious themes of domestic violence.
The film did well at the box office, but reports of tension during its press tour and premiere quickly surfaced.
Despite the ongoing drama, sources close to the case have made it clear that a settlement is unlikely.
Both Blake and Justin have expressed their intention to fight the matter out in court, and the case now involves high-profile figures, including Blake's famous husband and Hollywood powerhouses such as Taylor Swift, Disney, and Marvel, all of whom have been drawn into the legal web.
With the trial scheduled to begin on March 9, 2025, the case between Blake and Justin is expected to intensify in the coming months.
The trial will take place in New York City, in the same courthouse where the high-profile sex-trafficking case against Sean 'Diddy' Combs is also being heard.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Rana Naidu 2 actor Rana Daggubati: Globally, theatres are on a decline
Actor Rana Daggubati, who has been a part of Indian cinema for almost 15 years, says that the Telugu industry is showing remarkable growth, be it global success stories like the Baahubali and Pushpa series, and RRR (2022), or smaller films. 'Globally, the theatres are on a decline in some manner. Seven or eight years ago, there were three times the number of theatres that there are today,' shares the 40-year-old, who will next be seen in the web series Rana Naidu 2, adding, 'Now, there are so many more mediums of entertainment or content viewing, be it OTT, YouTube or just something on your phone.' Also Read| Rana Daggubati opens up about nepotism in film industries, says 'ultimately you have to stand in front of camera, act' Despite the challenges, he remains optimistic: 'Cinema will always find its beat; there are a few things that are still communal as watching a film together — that doesn't go away easily.' He cites actor Priyadarshi Pulikonda's Telugu legal drama Court as an example of how good cinema still resonates, despite a small budget. 'There are so many independent films that have become popular, which wouldn't have been the case a few years ago. Like Court which has done very well. Such films are almost getting to mainstream numbers,' he says. A post shared by Netflix India (@netflix_in) Rana also praises the Telugu industry's diversity and affordability. 'Telugu is doing better than the other industries because of the larger variety of stuff that is being produced. And the cost of going to cinema in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is still not as expensive as Mumbai and Delhi.' Regarding the expectations of pan-India blockbusters from Telugu films, he emphasises that not every story is meant to be universal. 'Some things are just for a local market. You need that cultural understanding. Having said that, there are also films made with the clear intention of reaching audiences across the country, and that has been happening,' he ends.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Fans alarmed as Justin Bieber appears in Hollywood sporting a mystery injury — what's really going on?
Justin Bieber is yet again making headlines. His recent strange rants on social media and past comments about his wife, Hailey Bieber , have only made things worse. Fans worry about Justin Bieber's well-being after he is spotted out in Hollywood with an unexplained injury. Why did Justin Bieber wear a knee brace? During a recent outing in Hollywood on Friday, Justin looked noticeably thinner and wore a knee brace on his left leg, which caused fans to become even more concerned. This has led to more speculation. Hailey has talked about the rumors of a divorce, but fans are still very worried about Justin's health. Recent comments made by Justin Bieber amid rumors of financial difficulties connected to his 2022 "Justice" tour have also raised questions about his marriage to Hailey Bieber. ALSO READ: Justin Baldoni's $400 million lawsuit in risk after reporter admits texting error that could sink the case Live Events The Daily Mail was able to obtain pictures of him wearing layered hoodies, blue slide sandals, green checkered shorts, and a baseball cap as she made her way to a nearby spa. Under the hoodie, a glimpse of his neck tattoo was visible, and he remained in a reserved manner. His sighting follows a mysterious tirade by Justin Bieber on Instagram about people making snap judgments and stating what other people "deserve." Did his Instagram rant upset fans? Fans accuse Justin Bieber of hypocrisy after a controversial post, and mixed reactions follow. Fans expressed support, criticism, and worry in the comments section of Justin's Instagram post after his outburst. The pop star was criticized by many for his "hypocrisy," and they advised him to stop using social media entirely. Particularly among those who saw the singer's post as a reaction to continuous criticism of his treatment of his wife, Hailey Bieber, it seemed to touch a nerve. Someone wrote, "If you're mad about people telling Hailey deserves better, YES, she deserves better." Another person begged, "Justin, please take a break from social media, go to therapy, and take care of your beautiful family." Others brought up previous comments, citing an instance in which Justin allegedly told Hailey that she wasn't deserving of a Vogue cover: "Well, you had the audacity to tell your wife she couldn't be on Vogue cover for her accomplishment." What's the truth about his marriage? The second wave of backlash intensified when the pop star admitted to telling Rhode's founder she would never appear on Vogue. Justin revealed the comment came from a past argument in a now-deleted Instagram caption celebrating her cover. In a May 20 Vogue interview, Hailey Bieber denied the divorce rumors, proving that much of what people see online is false. FAQs Why are fans concerned about Justin Bieber? He was spotted looking frail with a knee brace, and his recent cryptic posts have raised concerns. What is going on in his marriage? Despite divorce rumors, Hailey Bieber insists their relationship is strong and that the online chatter is not true.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Despite its flaws, the Collegium system preserves judicial independence,' says SC judge Justice Surya Kant
Strongly defending the collegium system of judicial appointments, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant said on Saturday that, 'despite its imperfections, it serves as a crucial institutional safeguard … preserving the Judiciary's autonomy.' Speaking at Seattle University on the topic 'The Quiet Sentinel: Courts, Democracy, and the Dialogue Across Borders,' Justice Kant noted that the collegium 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality.' He acknowledged that the system 'has been subject to sustained criticism—particularly regarding the opacity of its deliberative processes and the lack of publicly articulated criteria—but recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it.' Referring to proactive judicial interventions that advance constitutional compassion, he asked in his June 4 address, 'How far can courts go in shaping policy?' and 'Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice?' 'The answer, I believe, lies in intent and integrity. When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy—they deepen it,' he said. Justice Kant conceded that the judiciary 'has not remained impervious to criticism that at times it breaches the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach' and added that 'in recent years, there has been a discernible shift toward greater institutional self-restraint in select domains. The Court has increasingly sought to nudge rather than command, and to engage with other branches of government in efforts to increase dialogic remedies. This evolving balance reflects an awareness that judicial authority is most enduring when it is exercised with a sense of humility—when the Court is seen not as an omnipotent arbiter but as a co-traveller in the democratic journey, grounded in constitutional values.' He described the judiciary as 'the sentinel of constitutional morality' and said it 'has been instrumental in shaping this very democracy's moral spine.' Recalling past challenges, Justice Kant observed that 'the Indian judiciary, too, traversed periods of profound trial and transformation. Particularly during the Emergency, the Court grappled with serious challenges to its independence and, at times, exhibited troubling deference to executive power. Yet, this phase of institutional strain gave way to a renewed judicial consciousness.' He added that 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion. It is not merely the existence of judicial independence that is noteworthy, but rather the degree and contours of that independence—how it is asserted, negotiated, and exercised—that renders the Indian experience particularly distinctive within the global constitutional landscape.' On the role of courts in a democracy, he said, 'constitutional democracy is … a system where majorities are checked, where minorities are protected, and where principles cannot be sacrificed at the altar of popularity,' and 'in such a system, courts cannot function as mere referees.' He stressed, 'in a democracy as vast and diverse as India's, it is only when the judiciary wears its power lightly, and its conscience visibly, that it can remain not only the last word, but also a trusted voice among many in our collective democratic journey.' 'Judiciary may not be the most visible arm of the state, it may not command battalions or shape budgets, but it performs a task more difficult: it keeps alive the promise of justice. In India, this task has often been thankless, occasionally triumphant, and always essential. The judiciary is not a saviour; it is a sentinel. It does not march. It watches. And when necessary, it speaks—not to please, but to preserve.' Earlier, during a visit to the Washington State Supreme Court's Temple of Justice in Olympia on June 3, Justice Kant highlighted the SC's defence of free speech rights, noting that 'pre-censorship and vague notions of public order cannot trump the right to free expression,' and adding, 'these are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations—that democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity.' Drawing parallels between the Indian and American judiciaries, he said, 'in both countries, the Judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the Executive may hold … Both our systems were designed not to trust power blindly, but to restrain it.' At a fireside chat at Microsoft Corporation headquarters on June 6, Justice Kant touched on the rise of technology such as artificial intelligence in the judicial process. He said he was 'firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests.' He warned that 'technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' and added, 'technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity' and 'must adapt to the lived realities of the people it seeks to serve.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
