Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Popculturechat is claiming this:

"Baldoni/Lively Judge rules that Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively was "legally frivolous and factually baseless" and sanctions Baldoni's lawyers"

Is that true?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1270.0.pdf

Basically yes it was true. The judge ruled that most of the claims that were against Reynolds were legally frivalous and factually baseless and that he shouldn't have been included and he also ruled that adding that there is a claim for relief for by Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or IEWUM was also legally frivolous and factually baseless. Of the 7 claims, the judge ruled 6 of them were legally frivolous and factually baseless. One of them he agreed was legitimate.

The judge also ruled against Reynolds in his separate motion for Rule 11 attorney's fees with respect to the defamation claim brought by WF. With respect to that claim, the judge found it was not legally frivolous and denied all relief requested by Reynolds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget that Blake also lost her motion for sanctions against Freedman. That happened a week earlier and hasn’t been discussed here either.

Right, the Blake bots want to forgot about that, the Reynolds motion that was denied in its entirety, the Leslie Sloane loss and the Stephanie Jones not being allowed to amend her complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget that Blake also lost her motion for sanctions against Freedman. That happened a week earlier and hasn’t been discussed here either.

Right, the Blake bots want to forgot about that, the Reynolds motion that was denied in its entirety, the Leslie Sloane loss and the Stephanie Jones not being allowed to amend her complaint.

All of those things have been acknowledged in the Lively supporter posts. We just think it's amusing that the Baldoni fans don't acknowledge that Baldoni's side lost anything.

[Anonymous]

Liman has dismissed a lot of Livelys claims including all the SH but kept the claims for retaliation and breach of contract. Annoying af to release the decision 30 minutes before the hearing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman has dismissed a lot of Livelys claims including all the SH but kept the claims for retaliation and breach of contract. Annoying af to release the decision 30 minutes before the hearing!

Wow! I thought retaliation required some “protected conduct”. Can’t wait to read the decision.

[Anonymous]

This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

[Anonymous]

Weird because federal retaliation claim dismissed but retaliation claim remains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

Federal retaliation claim dismissed though, seems like what survived may be narrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

That's fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

All Baldoni really wanted was to not be known as a harasser. Now Blake looks like a serious Karen, which we’ve been saying all along. And from a PR standpoint, I don’t think anyone cares if they smeared her when she was clearly smearing them too.

[Anonymous]

Having the sexual harassment claims thrown out in their entirety is huge. I’m a Baldoni supporter and really thought the judge would find at least a few of the allegations had sufficient disputed facts to go to the jury.

[Anonymous]

Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath gets their lives back, Blake’s career likely over. No pun intended.

[Anonymous]

Well that hearing was a waste of time.