Latest news with #CaliforniaCivilCode
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Blake Lively backed by advocacy groups in legal fight with Justin Baldoni over #MeToo speech law
Blake Lively's effort to dismiss Justin Baldoni's defamation countersuit is getting a boost from several advocacy groups, who say the case threatens a hard-won legal protection for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct. Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco–based legal nonprofit that advocates for gender equity and workplace protections, filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging a federal judge to uphold Lively's motion and defend California's new free speech law protecting those who speak publicly about sexual misconduct. Additional briefs are expected in the coming days from advocacy groups including Child USA and Sanctuary for Families. The briefs mark the latest salvo in a months-long legal clash between Lively and Baldoni, whose bitter dispute stemming from the production of last year's romantic drama "It Ends With Us" has played out in court and the press. Lively has accused Baldoni, her co-star and the film's director, of harassing her during filming, citing improvised on-set physical contact, inappropriate conduct and alleged retaliation after she raised concerns — claims he has denied. Advocates say her case highlights the kind of public allegations that the law was meant to protect, and warn that a ruling against her could chill speech around harassment. 'If the law were to be struck down, it wouldn't just affect Blake Lively — it would essentially do away with the protections for all survivors,' said Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger protections for abuse survivors. 'It would be a devastating setback and completely undermine the purpose of the law, which was to make it easier for victims to come forward and to speak their truth without fear of retaliation.' Read more: Blake Lively moves to dismiss Justin Baldoni's countersuit, citing California law on misconduct claims Lively invoked the law — California Civil Code Section 47.1, enacted in 2023 as part of Assembly Bill 933 — in a motion filed in March to dismiss Baldoni's $400-million countersuit, which alleges she falsely accused him of harassment and retaliation and tried to wrest control of the film from him. Baldoni's legal team has strongly opposed the dismissal motion, arguing that Lively's accusations were knowingly false and that the statute she invoked is itself unconstitutional. They argue the law goes too far by threatening steep financial penalties, saying it could discourage people from going to court to defend themselves against false accusations. 'In no event, on this Motion or at any stage of this proceeding, will the First Amendment permit the extreme and unconstitutional award of fees, costs and treble and punitive damages Lively demands,' the filing states. That position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states. 'I was highly disappointed with that move,' said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. 'He's put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.' Lively's attorneys Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson also pushed back forcefully on the constitutional challenge, saying in a statement that Baldoni and the other defendants were 'so hell bent on trying to destroy Blake Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they 'bury' one." Read more: Inside the bare-knuckle legal brawl between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni AB 933 was designed to shield people who speak out about sexual harassment, assault or discrimination from retaliatory defamation suits, provided their statements weren't made with 'actual malice.' It also includes a fee-shifting provision that requires unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay legal costs and allows for treble and punitive damages. In a March 4 filing in federal court in New York, Lively's attorneys argued that Baldoni's countersuit is precisely the kind of retaliation that California's new law was meant to prevent. 'The law prohibits weaponizing defamation lawsuits, like this one, to retaliate against individuals who have filed legal claims or have publicly spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation,' the brief states. The case marks the first major test of AB 933 since it was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023. The outcome could set an early precedent for how far courts are willing to go in upholding the law — and what protections it ultimately provides for those who speak out about alleged misconduct. 'As more survivors came forward, the people who harmed them were increasingly using defamation lawsuits as weapons to try to silence them,' said Jessica Stender, deputy legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, one of the organizations that co-sponsored AB 933. 'When you see high-profile cases, like the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp case or in this case Blake Lively — survivors without money or fame are scared when they see what can happen to even a rich and famous person, and think, 'That could happen to me, and I can't take that chance.'" Read more: Justin Baldoni's tumultuous road to the center of a Hollywood scandal Lively's team, in a May 13 reply brief, defended the law's constitutionality and reiterated that her public statements were protected under AB 933. 'The First Amendment empowers legislatures to protect victims' First Amendment rights via fee-shifting rules designed to deter retaliatory litigation,' her attorneys wrote. The court has not yet ruled on Lively's motion to dismiss. If granted, it could deal a significant blow to Baldoni's countersuit — and shape how AB 933 is interpreted in future cases involving public allegations of misconduct. As other states look to adopt similar legislation, advocates say the outcome of the case could have ripple effects far beyond California. 'We want to be able to ensure that there is a social and legal environment where you can speak your truth and report sexual assault and harassment without fear of being sued,' said Dorchen Leidholdt, senior director of legal services at Sanctuary for Families, a New York–based nonprofit that provides legal and support services to survivors of gender-based violence. 'Legal retaliatory actions like the one brought by Mr. Baldoni and his team are doing enormous damage to victims, not just in California but across the country — affecting not only celebrity victims, but ordinary people.' 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.
Los Angeles Times
27-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
Blake Lively backed by advocacy groups in legal fight with Justin Baldoni over #MeToo speech law
Blake Lively's effort to dismiss Justin Baldoni's defamation countersuit is getting a boost from several advocacy groups, who say the case threatens a hard-won legal protection for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct. Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco–based legal nonprofit that advocates for gender equity and workplace protections, filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging a federal judge to uphold Lively's motion and defend California's new free speech law protecting those who speak publicly about sexual misconduct. Additional briefs are expected in the coming days from advocacy groups including Child USA and Sanctuary for Families. The briefs mark the latest salvo in a months-long legal clash between Lively and Baldoni, whose bitter dispute stemming from the production of last year's romantic drama 'It Ends With Us' has played out in court and the press. Lively has accused Baldoni, her co-star and the film's director, of harassing her during filming, citing improvised on-set physical contact, inappropriate conduct and alleged retaliation after she raised concerns — claims he has denied. Advocates say her case highlights the kind of public allegations that the law was meant to protect, and warn that a ruling against her could chill speech around harassment. 'If the law were to be struck down, it wouldn't just affect Blake Lively — it would essentially do away with the protections for all survivors,' said Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger protections for abuse survivors. 'It would be a devastating setback and completely undermine the purpose of the law, which was to make it easier for victims to come forward and to speak their truth without fear of retaliation.' Lively invoked the law — California Civil Code Section 47.1, enacted in 2023 as part of Assembly Bill 933 — in a motion filed in March to dismiss Baldoni's $400-million countersuit, which alleges she falsely accused him of harassment and retaliation and tried to wrest control of the film from him. Baldoni's legal team has strongly opposed the dismissal motion, arguing that Lively's accusations were knowingly false and that the statute she invoked is itself unconstitutional. They argue the law goes too far by threatening steep financial penalties, saying it could discourage people from going to court to defend themselves against false accusations. 'In no event, on this Motion or at any stage of this proceeding, will the First Amendment permit the extreme and unconstitutional award of fees, costs and treble and punitive damages Lively demands,' the filing states. That position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states. 'I was highly disappointed with that move,' said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. 'He's put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.' Lively's attorneys Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson also pushed back forcefully on the constitutional challenge, saying in a statement that Baldoni and the other defendants were 'so hell bent on trying to destroy Blake Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they 'bury' one.' AB 933 was designed to shield people who speak out about sexual harassment, assault or discrimination from retaliatory defamation suits, provided their statements weren't made with 'actual malice.' It also includes a fee-shifting provision that requires unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay legal costs and allows for treble and punitive damages. In a March 4 filing in federal court in New York, Lively's attorneys argued that Baldoni's countersuit is precisely the kind of retaliation that California's new law was meant to prevent. 'The law prohibits weaponizing defamation lawsuits, like this one, to retaliate against individuals who have filed legal claims or have publicly spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation,' the brief states. The case marks the first major test of AB 933 since it was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023. The outcome could set an early precedent for how far courts are willing to go in upholding the law — and what protections it ultimately provides for those who speak out about alleged misconduct. 'As more survivors came forward, the people who harmed them were increasingly using defamation lawsuits as weapons to try to silence them,' said Jessica Stender, deputy legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, one of the organizations that co-sponsored AB 933. 'When you see high-profile cases, like the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp case or in this case Blake Lively — survivors without money or fame are scared when they see what can happen to even a rich and famous person, and think, 'That could happen to me, and I can't take that chance.'' Lively's team, in a May 13 reply brief, defended the law's constitutionality and reiterated that her public statements were protected under AB 933. 'The First Amendment empowers legislatures to protect victims' First Amendment rights via fee-shifting rules designed to deter retaliatory litigation,' her attorneys wrote. The court has not yet ruled on Lively's motion to dismiss. If granted, it could deal a significant blow to Baldoni's countersuit — and shape how AB 933 is interpreted in future cases involving public allegations of misconduct. As other states look to adopt similar legislation, advocates say the outcome of the case could have ripple effects far beyond California. 'We want to be able to ensure that there is a social and legal environment where you can speak your truth and report sexual assault and harassment without fear of being sued,' said Dorchen Leidholdt, senior director of legal services at Sanctuary for Families, a New York–based nonprofit that provides legal and support services to survivors of gender-based violence. 'Legal retaliatory actions like the one brought by Mr. Baldoni and his team are doing enormous damage to victims, not just in California but across the country — affecting not only celebrity victims, but ordinary people.'
Associated Press
03-05-2025
- Associated Press
California Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Victory for Bicyclists in Whitehead v. City of Oakland
- Ruling Strengthens Legal Protections and Reinforces Cities' Responsibility to Maintain Safe Roads - OAKLAND, Calif., May 2, 2025 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) — Rahman Law PC is pleased to share a powerful affirmation of bicyclists' rights: the California Supreme Court has ruled in Whitehead v. City of Oakland (Case S284303) that public entities cannot rely on liability waivers to avoid responsibility for dangerous road conditions. The decision marks a major legal milestone for bicycle safety and public accountability across the state. The case involved cyclist Ty Whitehead, who suffered a traumatic brain injury during a charity training ride after hitting a large, obscured pothole on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. Although Whitehead had signed a release form as part of the event, the Court ruled that such waivers cannot excuse a city from its statutory duty to maintain safe public roads. The Court unanimously found that exempting cities from liability in these cases violates California Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits contracts that waive responsibility for a violation of the law. A pivotal amicus curiae brief supporting Whitehead was submitted by renowned bicycle attorney Shaana Rahman, founder of Rahman Law PC in San Francisco. Rahman authored the brief on behalf of San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, California Bicycle Coalition (CalBike), and Bike East Bay, offering the Court a critical perspective on the real-world impact of road hazards on bicyclists and the importance of holding cities accountable for infrastructure safety. The brief helped underscore how releasing cities from liability would endanger cyclists and undermine public safety efforts statewide. 'This decision is a win not just for one rider, but for every Californian who uses a bike to get around,' said Shaana Rahman, bike lawyer and founder of Rahman Law PC. 'It sends a clear message that cities must take their responsibilities seriously—especially when it comes to keeping cyclists safe.' The ruling clarifies that municipal liability cannot be sidestepped through fine print and reaffirms that cyclists are entitled to the same legal protections as any other road user. It is especially significant at a time when more Californians are choosing bicycles for health, transportation, and environmental reasons. Organizations across the state have applauded the Court's decision. Shaana Rahman is calling it 'a critical step forward for equity, accountability, and the safety of all who share our roads.' About Rahman Law PC The personal injury lawyers at Rahman Law PC are powerful advocates for people who have been injured through no fault of their own. What makes Rahman Law PC different from other personal injury law firms is they care about what happens to their clients; they aggressively advocate for their clients' interests and have a personal relationship with each client, taking the time to listen and figure out solutions that make sense from a legal point of view but also from a human perspective. By providing the highest quality legal services to those who have been injured or have suffered wrongdoing at the hands of other individuals, corporations, or public entities, the personal injury attorneys and trial lawyers at Rahman Law PC have a proven track record of results and have successfully recovered millions of dollars for clients throughout California. Rahman Law PC offers clients attentive service backed with big firm experience, making them ready to take on any opponent. To learn more about the personal injury lawyers at Rahman Law PC, visit or call (415) 956-9245 in San Francisco, (805) 619-3108 in Paso Robles, California. Court Docket Info (PDF): NEWS SOURCE: Rahman Law PC ### MEDIA ONLY CONTACT: (not for publication online or in print) Lacey Clifton-Jensen (805) 619-3108 1111 Riverside Avenue, Suite 500 Paso Robles CA 93446 [email protected] ### Keywords: Legal and Law, Rahman Law PC, Shaana Rahman, bike lawyer, Whitehead v. City of Oakland, California Supreme Court, OAKLAND, Calif. This press release was issued on behalf of the news source (Rahman Law PC) who is solely responsibile for its accuracy, by Send2Press® Newswire. Information is believed accurate but not guaranteed. Story ID: S2P125934 APNF0325A To view the original version, visit: © 2025 Send2Press® Newswire, a press release distribution service, Calif., USA. RIGHTS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY LEGITIMATE MEDIA OUTLET - SUCH AS NEWSPAPER, BROADCAST OR TRADE PERIODICAL. MAY NOT BE USED ON ANY NON-MEDIA WEBSITE PROMOTING PR OR MARKETING SERVICES OR CONTENT DEVELOPMENT. Disclaimer: This press release content was not created by nor issued by the Associated Press (AP). Content below is unrelated to this news story.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni Will Not Back Down in Blake Lively Lawsuit
Justin Baldoni is pushing back in court after Blake Lively requested a dismissal of his $400 million lawsuit. It accuses the Gossip Girl actress of defamation and other claims. The legal dispute arose from tensions during the production of It Ends with Us. Furthermore, it also names Lively's husband, Ryan Reynolds. Baldoni's legal team has filed a formal response, challenging Lively's efforts to have the case dismissed. Justin Baldoni has responded to Blake Lively's motion to dismiss his $400 million defamation lawsuit. The response was submitted on April 3 in a New York federal court. Lively's motion, filed on March 20, sought dismissal under California Civil Code Section 47.1. This code protects individuals who speak publicly about sexual harassment from being sued in response. Lively also requested legal costs and damages. (via PEOPLE) The filing argues that Lively's motion should be denied because the original complaint contains specific claims of defamation. According to Baldoni's legal team, Lively allegedly attempted to pressure Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, into giving her full creative control over the film. When her 'plan backfired,' she allegedly made damaging public accusations. Baldoni's legal team further argued that the court should not award Lively attorney's fees or compensation for damages, even if it grants the dismissal. Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, stated that Lively's motion seeks to avoid responsibility by claiming legal immunity. He argues that for her to be protected under Section 47.1, the court would need to decide 'that she acted alone and without malice and that she had a reasonable basis for her claims.' Freedman stated in a statement, 'Ms. Lively and her circle of Hollywood elites cannot prevent my clients from exercising their constitutional right to petition the court to clear their names from her false and harmful claims.' Originally reported by Disheeta Maheshwari on ComingSoon. The post Justin Baldoni Will Not Back Down in Blake Lively Lawsuit appeared first on Mandatory.
Fox News
12-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Justin Baldoni claims Blake Lively 'never intended' to file lawsuit: docs
Justin Baldoni alleges Blake Lively's intentions in filing a civil rights complaint instead of a lawsuit "were deliberate." Lively, 37, initially filed a complaint against Baldoni with the California Civil Rights Department Dec. 21, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment while working on "It Ends With Us." She also claimed that after raising concerns, he, along with a crisis PR team, orchestrated a retaliation campaign aimed at ruining her career. Baldoni, 41, launched a website that included an amended version of his $400 million defamation lawsuit against his co-star and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, which included an updated suit and timeline of events to counter claims she was sexually harassed on set of the drama for which he served as director. In his amended lawsuit, Baldoni claimed, "Lively never intended to file a civil lawsuit, which would have triggered the Wayfarer Parties' right to discovery, including obtaining evidence and deposing Lively under oath. By the time Lively actually filed a lawsuit against the Wayfarer Parties, the damage to the Wayfarer Parties was done by virtue of Lively's months of colluding with the New York Times on a false and malicious narrative unshielded by any privilege. Make no mistake: these actions were deliberate." Celebrity attorney Christopher C. Melcher exclusively told Fox News Digital Baldoni had "a very good reason" to make the claim that Lively's actions were intentional. "Because it was just a request for the government to investigate and not a lawsuit against Baldoni, he had no right to subpoena witnesses or force Blake or Ryan to sit for a deposition," Melcher said. "The suspicion is that she leaked this request for investigation to the media with all of these text messages on there so that she could garner public sympathy but not be exposed to any scrutiny for her allegations." Months after speculation of on-set issues between Baldoni and Lively, the "Gossip Girl" actress filed a complaint Dec. 21, making allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional affliction of emotional distress, negligence and more. Melcher specified the importance of Baldoni stating Lively "never intended to file a civil lawsuit" in his amended lawsuit shared online. "Ordinarily, if somebody makes a false statement against somebody, it's defamation, and you can get sued," Melcher said. "But if the statement is made in a lawsuit or in contemplation of an immediate suit being filed, it is protected under the litigation privilege – that's Civil Code, Section 47. "So, California Civil Code, Section 47 says statements made by a party in the course of a lawsuit are not defamatory, they're not actionable. You can't sue for defamation. And that's been interpreted to mean, 'OK, well, literally, if you're filing tomorrow, and you're maybe given a press release or demand letter, you can be covered under that umbrella that has to be immediately contemplated.' "So, this 'never intended' is the code word for him saying that the leaks to the press are not covered by this litigation privilege because they were not made in the context of a lawsuit, and so that's what gives him the right to sue. Otherwise, he would be blocked." Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, gave more insight into filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. "Before you file a sexual harassment lawsuit in California, you have to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) and obtain a right to sue letter," Rahmani told Fox News Digital. "This is the state's equivalent of the EEOC, except they enforce California state law instead of federal law. Just because you file a complaint with the CRD doesn't mean you have to file a lawsuit. You can use the CRD's internal investigation process instead. "There is the possibility that Lively never intended to file a lawsuit and just wanted to file a complaint with the CRD and have the New York Times run the story to ruin Baldoni's reputation." On Dec. 31, Lively filed a federal suit shortly after Baldoni filed his own $250 million defamation suit against The New York Times, which he claimed published an article "rife with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions." "Nothing in this lawsuit changes anything about the claims advanced in Ms. Lively's California Civil Rights Department complaint, nor her federal complaint, filed earlier today," Lively's representatives told Fox News Digital at the time. The "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" actress alleged in her federal filing that Baldoni, the Wayfarer Studios film production company and a handful of associates were involved in a "carefully crafted, coordinated, and resourced retaliatory scheme to silence her, and others, from speaking out." "This case is obviously as much about the court of public opinion as it is the courtroom," Rahmani added. "Lively may have been trying to scare Baldoni with the CRD complaint or send him a message. The communications between Lively and her publicists will be very revealing. Was this just a PR move that backfired, or was it really the precursor to filing a lawsuit?" Fox News Digital has reached out to Lively's representatives for comment.
