BALDONI VS. LIVELY CASE TOSSED

BY SNN.BZ STAFF

Justin Baldoni’s $400 Million Lawsuit Dismissed: What Happened and What’s Next

On June 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman in New York dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times, marking a significant development in the high-profile legal battle surrounding the film It Ends With Us. The dismissal is a major setback for Baldoni, who had accused Lively and others of defamation and extortion, while Lively’s team celebrated the ruling as a “total victory and complete vindication.” Here’s a detailed breakdown of the case, why it was dismissed, and what could happen next, alongside a call for American citizens to stay vigilant in addressing broader issues of accountability and justice.

justin-baldoni-sues-blake-lively Download

Background of the Dispute

The legal feud between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, co-stars and collaborators on the 2024 romantic drama It Ends With Us, erupted in December 2024 when Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment on set and orchestrating a retaliatory smear campaign to damage her reputation. Lively’s allegations, detailed in an 80-page complaint, included claims of inappropriate behavior by Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios CEO Jamey Heath, as well as a coordinated effort to “bury” her through media manipulation. She followed up with a federal lawsuit in New York on December 31, 2024, reiterating these claims.

Baldoni, who also directed the film, denied the allegations and countered with a $400 million lawsuit in January 2025 against Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and Sloane’s PR firm, Vision PR, alleging defamation, extortion, and intentional interference with contractual relations. He also filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for its December 21, 2024, article titled “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” which reported on Lively’s allegations. Baldoni’s team claimed Lively fabricated the harassment claims to seize creative control of the film and that her allies, including Reynolds and Sloane, engaged in a smear campaign to ruin his reputation.

Why the Lawsuit Was Dismissed

Judge Liman’s June 9, 2025, ruling dismissed Baldoni’s claims in their entirety, citing several legal deficiencies:

Defamation Claims Unviable: The court ruled that Lively’s allegations in her California Civil Rights Department complaint and subsequent lawsuit were protected by litigation privilege, meaning they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim. Statements made in legal proceedings are generally exempt from libel claims under U.S. law.
No Extortion Under California Law: Baldoni’s claim that Lively attempted to extort him by demanding creative control of It Ends With Us was dismissed because the allegations did not meet the legal definition of extortion under California law. The judge found insufficient evidence that Lively’s actions constituted a criminal or unlawful threat.
Claims Against The New York Times: The court rejected Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, affirming the newspaper’s First Amendment protections. The Times’ article was deemed fair journalism covering a story of public interest, and Baldoni failed to show that the outlet acted with “actual malice” (knowingly publishing false information or with reckless disregard for the truth). A prior ruling in March 2025 had already signaled the Times’ strong case for dismissal, pausing evidence-gathering to protect the outlet from burdensome discovery requests.
Other Claims: Baldoni’s additional claims, such as intentional interference with contractual relations, were also dismissed for failing to meet legal standards. However, the judge granted Baldoni’s team until June 23, 2025, to amend and refile two specific claims—breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract—if they choose to pursue them.

Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, described the dismissal as a “profound abuse of the legal process” by Baldoni and his team, arguing that his lawsuit was a retaliatory attempt to silence Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment. The New York Times echoed this sentiment, with spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander stating, “We are grateful to the court for seeing the lawsuit for what it was: a meritless attempt to stifle honest reporting.”

Additional Context: Emotional Distress Claims

Earlier in the case, on June 3, 2025, Lively voluntarily withdrew two of her claims against Baldoni—intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress—after Baldoni’s team requested access to her medical and mental health records to defend against these allegations. Lively’s attorneys called this a “routine part of the litigation process” to streamline her case, focusing on her core claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. However, Baldoni’s team argued that Lively’s withdrawal was an attempt to avoid disclosing records that might undermine her claims, and they sought a dismissal “with prejudice” to prevent her from refiling. Judge Liman denied Baldoni’s motion to compel the records and instructed both parties to agree on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, warning that failure to dismiss the claims would bar Lively from presenting evidence of emotional distress.

This episode highlighted the contentious nature of the dispute, with both sides accusing the other of manipulating the media. Lively’s team called Baldoni’s filing a “press stunt,” while Baldoni’s attorneys maintained that Lively was dodging accountability.

Public and Legal Reactions

The dismissal sparked varied reactions. Lively’s legal team declared it a “total victory,” vowing to pursue attorneys’ fees, treble damages, and punitive damages against Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and associated parties, including publicist Melissa Nathan and executive Steve Sarowitz. The New York Times celebrated the ruling as a defense of journalistic integrity.

On X, sentiments were mixed. Some users, like

@CJournalist24, questioned the ruling’s implications, suggesting it could allow unverified accusations to be repeated without liability if someone believes them to be true. Others, like

@TVMovieAddict, argued the dismissal reflects a system favoring “louder voices” with more influence, implying Lively and Reynolds’ celebrity status swayed the outcome. Conversely,

@Expatriarch_uk noted the comprehensive nature of the dismissal, emphasizing that every motion to dismiss was granted, leaving Baldoni’s claims in tatters.

@SweetCa40472719 acknowledged the dismissal but suggested Baldoni’s team might refile for breach of contract, indicating the legal battle may not be over.

What’s Next?

While Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit has been dismissed, the legal saga is far from over:

Baldoni’s Option to Refile: Baldoni’s team has until June 23, 2025, to amend and refile claims for breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract. These claims would likely focus on allegations that Lively and Reynolds interfered with Baldoni’s control over It Ends With Us. However, given the court’s broad dismissal, any amended claims will face a high bar to succeed.
Lively’s Ongoing Lawsuit: Lively’s federal lawsuit against Baldoni, accusing him of sexual harassment and retaliation, remains active, with a trial scheduled for March 9, 2026. Her amended complaint, filed earlier in 2025, includes additional evidence and witnesses to support her claims. Lively’s attorneys have expressed confidence that she will testify in court, signaling her commitment to pursuing the case.
Pursuit of Damages: Lively’s team plans to seek attorneys’ fees, treble damages, and punitive damages from Baldoni and his associates, arguing that their “abusive litigation” warrants financial penalties. This could significantly increase Baldoni’s legal and financial exposure, especially given reports that he is already feeling the “financial and emotional weight” of the dispute.
Public and Industry Impact: The case continues to dominate headlines, with Baldoni’s career reportedly “dead in the water” in Hollywood, while Lively has maintained a public presence, including appearances at high-profile events like the TIME100 Gala. The dismissal may further damage Baldoni’s reputation, though his team’s launch of a website (thelawsuitinfo.com) with a detailed timeline of events suggests they are still fighting in the court of public opinion.

A Call to Action for American Citizens

The Baldoni-Lively case, while centered on personal and professional disputes, underscores broader themes of accountability, justice, and the power dynamics within legal and public spheres. Just as the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia highlights the need to address criminal behavior among illegal immigrants, this high-profile legal battle serves as a reminder that no one—regardless of status—should be above the law. American citizens can draw inspiration from this case to remain vigilant in their communities:

Demand Transparency: Support legal processes that prioritize evidence and fairness over celebrity influence or media narratives. Engage with local and federal authorities to ensure justice is served impartially.
Stay Informed: Follow cases like this to understand how legal systems handle allegations of misconduct. Educate yourself through reputable sources, not just social media, to avoid misinformation.
Advocate for Accountability: Whether it’s addressing criminal activity, as in Garcia’s case, or high-profile disputes like this one, push for systems that hold individuals accountable without fear or favor. Contact elected officials to support laws that protect victims and ensure fair trials.
Community Vigilance: Just as citizens are encouraged to report illegal activities like human smuggling, stay alert to abuses of power or misconduct in your own communities, whether in workplaces, schools, or public spaces. Report concerns to appropriate authorities, such as local law enforcement or regulatory bodies.

The dismissal of Baldoni’s lawsuit is a pivotal moment, but the broader legal battle and its implications for justice and accountability continue. By staying engaged, Americans can help ensure that the rule of law prevails, whether addressing border security or disputes among the powerful.