Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
Dp. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!
Anonymous wrote:BL apparently "won," yet her shills can't celebrate this victory and insist on arguing with JB supporters. I think it's because they secretly know, deep down, the general public hates her. Just absolutely loathes the frizzy haired loser.
This assumes anyone here is a fan of her as a personality and I'm almost sure that's not the case. The support for her here seems to be posters who will defend any woman in SH, posters who agree with her legal arguments, or people who don't like her but dislike Baldoni and his team as well. I don't think anyone is losing sleep over Lively being disliked.
Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
Dp. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!
I’m saying she may recover many of her attorneys fees spent so far through 47.1, and that the treble and punitive damages provisions in that statute, to be paid by Baldoni if the judge so determines, could potentially also in effect subsidize the rest of the litigation.
Anonymous wrote:BL apparently "won," yet her shills can't celebrate this victory and insist on arguing with JB supporters. I think it's because they secretly know, deep down, the general public hates her. Just absolutely loathes the frizzy haired loser.
This assumes anyone here is a fan of her as a personality and I'm almost sure that's not the case. The support for her here seems to be posters who will defend any woman in SH, posters who agree with her legal arguments, or people who don't like her but dislike Baldoni and his team as well. I don't think anyone is losing sleep over Lively being disliked.
They loathe her BECAUSE they believe she wasn't actually sexually harassed, and yes, BL supporters are upset about that, otherwise, the two of them who post here wouldn't be trying so hard to convince JB supporters!
Anonymous wrote:On some level I'm impressed that Baldoni losing on ALL of his claims at the MTD stage has not impacted the confidence of JB supporters even the tiniest bit. The delusion is strong with y'all.
Meanwhile when all the Taylor stuff was going down, you saw Lively supporters openly saying that if it was true that Lively threatened Taylor or tried to get her to destroy evidence, they would absolutely stop supporting her. When Lively has had bad outcomes to motions or the judge has seemed annoyed with her side, Lively supporters largely seem to acknowledge this, at least.
But Baldoni's entire lawsuit was just thrown out, and the JB folks are still out here lecturing, giving unsolicited advise, explaining how "litigations" work, etc. Truly epic.
Just reposting this for truth 5 pages later, given the total insanity that some Baldoni supporters are posting now.
Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
Dp. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!
And Baldoni doesn't have to pay to go to trial? I get he's got a benefactor, but that benefactor is also a person who's got to decide if going to trial is worth it. We'll see if he really meant it about paying 100 million to fight, now that the chances of Wayfarer collecting anything are slim.
Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
Dp. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!
And Baldoni doesn't have to pay to go to trial? I get he's got a benefactor, but that benefactor is also a person who's got to decide if going to trial is worth it. We'll see if he really meant it about paying 100 million to fight, now that the chances of Wayfarer collecting anything are slim.
It’s likely all being covered by a corporate insurance policy.
Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
DP.
I highly doubt there’s a settlement where he’d be paying her. Either zero or her paying wayfarer etc. As far as legal fees, Blake is an individual and these fees have to REALLY hurt. Justin has corporate backing and probably wayfarer has insurance too.
This level of delusion after yesterday is unfathomable to me. Also ignores the Baldoni risk of fees and damages under 47.1. Baldoni supporters are simply not accepting the new landscape here.
Congrats team Lively on your dragon... blowing millions of dollars and causing irreparable permanent harm to her and her husband's reputations on a partial "win" for their hoax?
Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
DP.
I highly doubt there’s a settlement where he’d be paying her. Either zero or her paying wayfarer etc. As far as legal fees, Blake is an individual and these fees have to REALLY hurt. Justin has corporate backing and probably wayfarer has insurance too.
This level of delusion after yesterday is unfathomable to me. Also ignores the Baldoni risk of fees and damages under 47.1. Baldoni supporters are simply not accepting the new landscape here.
Baldoni is likely an indemnified party under a corporate insurance policy. Not sure that’s clear to you. Very different than paying for this out of pocket as an individual
Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
Dp. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!
I’m saying she may recover many of her attorneys fees spent so far through 47.1, and that the treble and punitive damages provisions in that statute, to be paid by Baldoni if the judge so determines, could potentially also in effect subsidize the rest of the litigation.
That is a huge risk especially since people don’t believe her. Why would a jury?
Anonymous wrote:On some level I'm impressed that Baldoni losing on ALL of his claims at the MTD stage has not impacted the confidence of JB supporters even the tiniest bit. The delusion is strong with y'all.
Meanwhile when all the Taylor stuff was going down, you saw Lively supporters openly saying that if it was true that Lively threatened Taylor or tried to get her to destroy evidence, they would absolutely stop supporting her. When Lively has had bad outcomes to motions or the judge has seemed annoyed with her side, Lively supporters largely seem to acknowledge this, at least.
But Baldoni's entire lawsuit was just thrown out, and the JB folks are still out here lecturing, giving unsolicited advise, explaining how "litigations" work, etc. Truly epic.
Just reposting this for truth 5 pages later, given the total insanity that some Baldoni supporters are posting now.
When have you acknowledged anything? You refuse to admit this has been a crap show for her and she should try to settle
Lawyers are milking both sides. Nobody is winning shit here. Nothing that happens in court is changing anyone’s minds. The vast majority see Blake & Ryan as hoaxers.
Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?
This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.
You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.
DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.
Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.
DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.
Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.
And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.
Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.
Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.
Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.
Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?
What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.
This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations
So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??
I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.
Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant
DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.
It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.
In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).
Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.
Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.
So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.
Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.
With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.
This is obvious to most lawyers
I know I've never argued that she shouldn't settle at all under any circumstances, and I don't recall anyone arguing that; if anything, the categorical statements have been from the Baldoni side. I have argued that she should have held off on settling until the MTDs were decided and she had some discovery on financial damages. Are these not things that would be obvious to reasonable lawyers? How can the dismissal of most claims, with prejudice, not support those arguments?
I’m not sure you understand. Before the MTD, there was a risk that they could go a different way. And even now, Baldoni has the option to refile (4 out of 7 claims, I believe). And appeal two claims. It’s all about risk and trying to manage it, and considering the best possible outcome. Even if she manages to outrun all of his direct claims, she still risks her claims at trial, the millions she will spend and the damage to her rep. It’s huge.
Yes, of course if we have clear answers, we can state this or that. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you think those contract claims are actually worth much? I thought it was the defamation and extortion claims that were footing the bill for him.
This still seems like a lot of denial of reality to me. Saying that there was a risk that his claims wouldn't be dismissed so she should settle first before they weren't, when in fact they WERE dismissed -- okay, sure, I guess. It would have been the wrong call, since they actually were all dismissed. It could have gone another way, but it didn't. And now any settlement that goes forward would have to be him paying her where before it was the other way around. And when you talk about the millions she will spend, you don't seem to be understanding the risk to Baldoni that he will actually be spending that, not her.
It's not crazy to me that she consider settling now, that this MTD is in, and solidify that. I'm not against settlement. But where only Baldoni's claims were subject to MTDs, not Lively's, and his claims were so terribly pled to start with, and clearly risked being dismissed with prejudice, I do absolutely think those of us saying settlement before the MTDs were decided would be silly were absolutely vindicated.
Dp. Blake needs to spend money to go to trial. What do you mean? And she will need to spend A LOT bc if she doesn’t win, she looks like a liar!
I’m saying she may recover many of her attorneys fees spent so far through 47.1, and that the treble and punitive damages provisions in that statute, to be paid by Baldoni if the judge so determines, could potentially also in effect subsidize the rest of the litigation.
Seems unlikely because the judge sidestepped 47.1 in his ruling. If they submit a motion for fees citing 47.1 and the judge grants it, WF will appeal and we’ll hopefully get the Supreme Court showdown we’ve all been waiting for anyway.
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}