On April 7, 2025, Blake Lively’s legal team filed a sweeping motion to dismiss the defamation lawsuit brought against her by Jed Wallace and his company, Street Relations, Inc. The motion, which runs over 40 pages, makes a calculated and multi-pronged argument for why the case should not proceed in Texas—or at all.

At the heart of the matter is a workplace dispute that exploded into multiple legal actions, press coverage, and what Lively’s team calls a “retaliatory campaign” against her. Wallace and Street Relations claim they were defamed by their inclusion in a California Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint and a related media firestorm. Lively argues their claims fail for three reasons: lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.

No Business in Texas

Lively is a New York resident. She insists that she has no meaningful connections to Texas and never directed any conduct or speech there that would warrant being hauled into court. Her filing of a Rule 202 petition in Texas state court—a tool for pre-litigation depositions—doesn’t cut it, she argues, because it was a non-substantive procedural move and never led to formal service or litigation on the merits.

Courts typically require a defendant to “purposefully avail” themselves of the forum state’s protections and benefits. Lively’s team says she never did that—and they cite Supreme Court precedent to back them up. Simply causing alleged reputational harm to a Texas resident isn’t enough. Under Walden v. Fiore, the harm must be connected to purposeful actions by the defendant in the forum state. Here, everything Lively allegedly did happened in California or New York.

The First-To-File Rule

In a savvy procedural play, Lively also invokes the first-to-file rule. She points out that her CRD complaint, followed by a federal lawsuit she initiated in New York on December 31, 2024, predate the Texas suit. In that New York case, Wallace and Street Relations were added as defendants on February 18, 2025. Lively argues that the Texas suit was filed on February 4 to avoid being named in the New York case—a textbook example of forum shopping.

Federal courts, especially in the Fifth Circuit, are wary of duplicative litigation. The first-to-file rule allows judges to dismiss or stay later-filed cases when the claims substantially overlap. According to Lively, this case is not just similar—it’s essentially the same.

The Defamation Claim Falls Apart

Even if the case were allowed to proceed in Texas, Lively says the defamation claim wouldn’t survive. Wallace and Street assert that being listed in the CRD complaint’s caption falsely implied they committed illegal acts. Lively counters that:

• The caption merely listed respondents as required by California procedure.
• The CRD complaint didn’t make specific defamatory statements about Wallace or Street.
• Legal documents like the CRD complaint are protected by litigation privilege, the fair report privilege, and California’s sexual harassment privilege.

She also notes that Wallace has failed to plead actual malice or even basic negligence—key elements of any defamation claim involving public figures or matters of public concern. Importantly, the motion challenges the idea that Wallace and Street suffered millions in damages solely due to their mention in a legal filing.

Framing the Narrative

Throughout the motion, Lively’s team repeatedly describes Wallace as a “hired gun” and “digital operative,” suggesting that his role in orchestrating smear campaigns undermines his credibility. This tactic isn’t just about winning on the law—it’s about reframing the broader narrative of who’s actually doing the reputation damage.

Where This Leaves Things

Lively’s motion positions her not just as a wronged party in a harassment and retaliation case, but as a target of a coordinated attempt to shut her up by abusing the legal process. Her legal team’s goal is clear: to shut down this lawsuit in Texas completely and keep the battle confined to federal court in New York.

Whether the Texas court agrees remains to be seen. But the motion makes one thing certain: this isn’t just about what happened on a film set. It’s about who controls the legal and public narrative—and where.