blake-lively

What Was Good for Blake Lively in This Ruling

gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.296.0Download
Although the court was not deciding Blake Lively’s own legal claims, this ruling marked a decisive procedural win for her. It granted the motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed against her by Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties, meaning she will not have to defend against their allegations in court—at least for now. While the judge made no findings on the truth of either side’s narrative, the dismissal ensures that Lively avoids discovery, depositions, and trial in this case. It also preserves her ability to seek fees or sanctions later and positions her as the prevailing party at this stage of the litigation.

1. Complete Dismissal of Baldoni and Wayfarer’s Claims

The Wayfarer Parties’ Amended Complaint was entirely dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). That means none of their claims—even assuming all facts were true—were legally sufficient to proceed. Blake Lively (and her co-defendants) do not have to answer discovery, sit for depositions, or proceed to trial on these claims.

This ruling is a strong procedural win that suggests the court viewed Wayfarer’s claims as legally weak or not properly pleaded.

2. Court Declined to Consider Wayfarer’s 168-Page “Timeline” (Exhibit A)

Lively asked the court to strike Exhibit A as irrelevant and inflammatory. While the court declined to formally strike it, it refused to consider Exhibit A in ruling on the motion to dismiss, calling it: “Not a written instrument that evidences legal rights or duties” but simply “an additional narrative summary.” This helps Blake because much of Exhibit A’s function was to paint her as abusive or dishonest. The court declined to let it bolster Wayfarer’s complaint.

3. Blake May Still Win Attorneys’ Fees or Sanctions

The court denied Blake’s motion for fees under California Civil Code § 47.1 and the anti-SLAPP law—but “without prejudice.” That means she can renew her motion after final judgment or possibly after the sanctions issue is resolved.

Lively still has a chance to recover attorneys’ fees or punitive damages if she prevails in Rule 11 sanctions or on any renewed anti-SLAPP motion.

4. The Court Relied Heavily on Her CRD Complaint and Times Article

Even though Baldoni’s team claimed these were defamatory or leaked, the court incorporated Blake’s CRD complaint and the New York Times article as “integral” to the pleading. This implicitly validated those documents’ relevance and proximity to the core of the dispute.

5. No Findings of Misconduct or Bad Faith Against Blake

The judge did not sanction Blake for allegedly leaking to the press, filing a “frivolous” CRD complaint, or “destroying” Baldoni’s cut of the film. If anything, the court refrained from weighing in on the factual disputes, declining to rule on Baldoni’s framing of her actions as extortionate or retaliatory.

What’s Still Pending — Rule 11 Sanctions

Blake Lively has moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Baldoni and Wayfarer. If granted, that could:

  • Strengthen her argument that the lawsuit was a bad-faith PR stunt.
  • Justify an award of attorneys’ fees or even bar further filings by the Wayfarer team.
  • Function as a formal judicial rebuke of Baldoni’s legal strategy and potentially chill public sympathy for his side.

However, the judge’s careful, procedural approach to this opinion—avoiding factual findings or inflammatory language—may suggest he’s unlikely to impose harsh Rule 11 sanctions, unless there’s proof of knowing falsehoods.

Bottom Line: How This Ruling Helps Blake

Procedurally:

  • She wins a clean dismissal.
  • She avoided discovery or depositions.
  • She preserved the possibility of fees/sanctions.

Reputationally:

  • Her CRD complaint and Times narrative were accepted into the case as integral.
  • The court did not criticize her conduct, nor find her complaint abusive or false.

Strategically:

  • She now holds leverage: If Baldoni re-files, she can renew anti-SLAPP or § 47.1 claims and seek sanctions again.

Leave a comment