Justin Baldoni‘s $400million countersuit against Blake Lively has been dismissed amid their ongoing It Ends With Us legal battle.
In a surprising turn of events, a judge has thrown out Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively, Reynolds, the New York Times, her publicist Sloane, and her PR firm Vision. This ruling deals a significant blow to the actor’s chances of achieving a successful outcome in the high-profile case against the wealthy actress.
Many are left wondering about the implications of this ruling and the reasons behind the judge’s decision. Does this dismissal indicate that Baldoni’s allegations against the couple, including claims that Blake attempted to seize control of the film and that her husband verbally attacked him, are unfounded?
It is important to note that while the judge has dismissed the lawsuit, it does not imply a judgment on the validity of Justin’s claims. Rather, the case was thrown out on procedural grounds related to defamation law.
Legal expert and Partner at Simkins LLP Jessica Welch explained: ‘The decision at this stage was not dealing with whether the allegations were true or false; it was mainly about the fact that Baldoni had not established the necessary elements to form a defamation claim in the US.’
From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail’s new Showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop.
Was Justin Baldoni lying about Ryan and Blake? Legal expert reveals what judge’s dismissal of $400million lawsuit really means – and what will happen next in bitter Hollywood saga
Although the judge has dismissed the case, it doesn’t mean he is ruling that Justin’s claims are untrue. Rather the case has been dismissed on technical grounds due to the terms of defamation
Jude Lewis J Liman dismissed Justin’s suit alleging defamation and extortion on the basis that all Blake’s allegations were made within privileged court papers.
Jessica explained: ‘Privilege essentially protects those making allegations against another person in specific circumstances from liability. One of those circumstances is statements made in court papers.
‘In this case, Lively is protected from claims of defamation being made against her for the allegations she made about Baldoni in her legal claim against him.’
If she had published the statements in another forum, for example in the press or on social media, they would potentially be considered as defamatory.
But “privilege” means Blake was able to bring legal proceedings against Justin without the risk of being sued for defamation for doing so.
Therefore Justin must have been able to show that the statements were not ‘privileged’ and that Blake was at fault for publishing the statements the director was concerned about.
As well as his case against Blake, Justin had also launched a case against the New York Times, which was also dismissed.
Jessica explained: ‘In terms of Baldoni’s claim against the New York Times, he needed to show that the statements were published with “actual malice” – i.e. the NYT knew the statements were false or were at least reckless as to whether they were true or false.
Jude Lewis J Liman dismissed Justin’s suit alleging defamation and extortion on the basis that all Blake’s allegations were made within privileged court papers
‘The Judge determined that the evidence did not support a finding of actual malice, referring to the fact that the article contained context favouring Baldoni, acknowledged criticism of Lively’s promotional efforts, and prominently included Wayfarer’s denials.’
Meanwhile the legalities of defamation differ in the US in comparison to the UK.
Jessica continued: ‘Unlike in the UK where the burden of proof would have rested on Reynolds and Sloane to show that that the allegations they had made are substantially true, in the US the burden is reversed so that Baldoni would have had to show that those allegations were false.
‘The Judge here found that Reynolds and Sloane made what they thought were true statements about Baldoni’s sexual harassment.’
Legal expert Laurence Weeks added that the claims against Reynolds, Sloane and the NYT were dismissed on ‘the basis that the relevant statements are simply “statements of opinion” that could reasonably have been held by an honest person based on the facts available at the time of publication of the statements.’
‘This is a legitimate defence to a defamation action under US Law. Wayfarer Studios’ action failed because they were unable to show that Mr Reynolds, Ms Lively’s publicist and the New York Times did not actually hold these opinions.
Judge Liman, however, did state the Wayfarer Parties will be able to file a second amended complaint by June 23, 2025 but are only able to amend the allegations ‘relevant to the claims of tortious interference with contract and breach of implied covenant.’
Confirming what this means, Jessica said that if he amends his complaint the trial will focus on much narrower issues.
She added: ‘Whether he will do so remains to be seen, but given the time, expense, and publicity this case has generated to date, and what is likely being seen by the public as a win for Lively’s side following Monday’s decision, you would think he would want some sort of vindication for this very public dispute.’
Importantly Blake’s case against Justin will still go ahead.
Laurence confirmed: ‘The dismissal of this claim should not directly impact the outcome of Ms Lively’s claim against Mr Baldoni for sexual harassment.
‘Mr Baldoni’s defences to that claim remain and will be raised at trial, the matter proceeds.’
Importantly Blake’s case against Justin will still go ahead. Laurence confirmed: ‘The dismissal of this claim should not directly impact the outcome of Ms Lively’s claim against Mr Baldoni for sexual harassment’
On Monday night Blake spoke out for the first time since the news as she released a powerful statement reflecting on the events
Speaking about the recent court decision, Blake’s attorney Michael Gottlieb told CNN: ‘Today is a message that these kind of retaliatory lawsuits that are really designed to silence and punish people that speak up won’t work.
‘They will not work. They will not be tolerated by our justice system and they will not be successful.’
On Monday night Blake spoke out for the first time since the news as she released a powerful statement reflecting on the events.
Taking to Instagram she penned: ‘Last week, I stood proudly alongside 19 organizations united in defending women’s rights to speak up for their safety.
‘Like so many others, I’ve felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us.’
The Los Angeles-born star continued: ‘While the suit against me was defeated, so many don’t have the resources to fight back.’
Lively, who shares four children with husband Ryan Reynolds, vowed that she was ‘more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman’s right to have a voice in protecting themselves, including their safety, their integrity, their dignity and their story.’
The Gossip Girl alum wrapped up in thanking those in the public who have supported her amid the turbulent past year.
‘With love and gratitude for the many who stood by me, many of you I know,’ Lively said. ‘Many of you I don’t. But I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you.’
The It Ends With Us actress, whose legal battle with Justin Baldoni has had a significant impact on her friendship with Taylor Swift, added a list of groups that had publicly supported her amid the highly-publicized Tinseltown tussle.
Among them, in alphabetical order, were the California Employment Lawyers Association, California Women’s Law Center, CHILD USA, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Equal Rights Advocates, Esperanza United, Her Justice, and Herunivercity Inc.
In a move that might have been a harbinger of changing momentum in the case, Lively took aim at Baldoni Thursday, saying that women’s groups had abandoned him in droves.
A total of ’19 leading survivors and organizations devoted to women’s rights, children’s rights and domestic violence have now signed onto four separate amicus briefs,’ a spokesperson for the Another Simple Favor actress told Daily Mail in a statement.
The statement continued: ‘All are united in opposing Justin Baldoni’s attempt to dismantle a law designed to protect women who speak up — simply to protect himself.’
Lively’s team said that Baldoni was going against his own playbook as the complicated legal case progresses, leaving himself open to increased scrutiny in the wake of his past public statements.
