Blake Lively seeks over $7.4 million in attorneys’ fees after winning a defamation case against Wayfarer. The focus is now on the reasonableness of her fee request, as Wayfarer argues the amount is excessive. Both parties aim to convince the court regarding what constitutes recoverable litigation expenses. Continue reading Baldoni/Wayfarer Claim Blake Lively $7.5 Million in Attorneys’ Fees Should Be Reduced: What will the Court Decide?

Blake Lively’s motion requests over $8 million in fees related to her defense against Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit. However, 70% of the fees are linked to shared work from both cases, raising questions about recoverability. This case tests California’s new Section 47.1, impacting future litigants amid media narratives of celebrity excess. Continue reading Seventy Percent

On June 1, 2026, a court hearing addressed Blake Lively’s motion for fees and damages under California Civil Code § 47.1. Judge Liman highlighted procedural challenges, particularly the statute’s fit with federal rules and Seventh Amendment concerns. Both parties largely agreed on burden allocation but differed on how the statute applies post-settlement. A decision is expected soon. Continue reading Liman Takes Lively’s § 47.1 Motion Under Advisement After Garofalo Struggles With the Counterclaim Problem

The May 7, 2026 settlement between Blake Lively and Wayfarer Studios resolved claims with prejudice, waiving appeals, while leaving Lively’s attorneys’ fees and damages motion pending. Freedman’s accusations of Lively lying highlight ongoing tensions. The future ruling on the 47.1 motion remains crucial, as it will impact public perceptions without further appeal options. Continue reading Freedman Cannot Stop Talking, and That Is the Point

On May 7, 2026, Blake Lively and Wayfarer Parties submitted documents settling nearly all claims in their legal dispute, leaving only Lively’s motion under California Civil Code section 47.1. The waiver of appeal rights ensures Judge Liman’s ruling will be final. How this ruling is reported may lead to misconceptions about its actual legal implications. Continue reading Blake Lively v Baldoni Settlement and Pending 47.1 Motion