Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell-all books are so boomer coded. Especially since he has all of the receipts, I bet Baldoni does a tell-all docu-series on this and he makes a boatload of money. If that boring nitwit Megan Markle can get $60 million from Netflix for an awful cooking show nobody watched, why couldn't Baldoni get $100 million for something like this? It'll break the internet.

People will only buy this if it dishes dirt. No one actually cares about Baldoni but his book might make a splash if it includes gossip/details about Blake and Ryan not already in the press. Which would be hard because so much already came out in discovery. If it's just a rehash of that, no one will care.

Also Baldoni has an annoying personality so he needs to be careful now. Right now Blake is seen as the loser and villain. But if he does a splashy book, even one that has info making Blake look bad, but people find him annoying or off-putting in the promotion, they will turn on him. He's been very quiet through all this, which is to his benefit, but it creates a risk of spoiling the good will if people decide they don't really like him after all.

I’m not a fan of Baldoni, but I don’t think he will do a tell all with sordid tabloid like details. He’s not an idiot and he’s not going to go gloat if he hasn’t already while Blake is running around at the met gala and fendi. We saw a lot of texts from him during a time when someone was actively trying to destroy his life and he seemed pretty centered and even-keeled. He seems to take his religion seriously and he and Jamey have seemed to take a lot of comfort in prayer and their family and working on the projects that they love. I don’t think he’s out for revenge.

NAG did a really nice interview with Kevin Fritz from the wayfarer legal team. Fritz is the anti Bryan Friedman. Not flashy, doesn’t seem at all knowledgeable or enamored with celebrity culture, very calm, seems like a nerdy lawyer. He said that from the start through the end, Jamey and Justin wanted the opportunity to get their side out, and if meant going all the way to a jury trial, they knew the risks but they could sleep at night knowing they got their side out and that was what was decided. They did not wish this to be brought on them, but it was and that’s how they dealt with it.

I don’t get the vibe he wants to punish Blake but I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted to tell a story on his terms and take less money even if it was not salacious. I still think he could have a compelling story showing their strategy, behind the scenes with family that has nothing to do with Blake, and what some of the behind-the-scenes looked like. Agree it won’t get 100 million but he has enough interest in him that I still think he could get a few more million for this and I think it could be done tastefully.

If it's tasteful and restrained it will not sell. He might get a few million to write it, but it's not going to sell without dirt and fireworks. His fan basis is rabidly anti-Blake and I don't think they will buy his book in large numbers without some red meat in that respect. He might have a different feeling/perspective, but his fan base is pretty clear about what they want.

I actually think an "unauthorized" account from some of the CCs could sell better.

I’d be surprised if he did a book, he’s a director and producer and has dedicated his career to storytelling through film, so a documentary would probably be the forum he would choose.

Time will tell, but I just don’t see him going the salacious route. And I think he would rather get less money. He actually doesn’t really need the money. People are kind of missing that. He’s literally from a billionaire family and he made at least 35 million from it ends with us. And Steve is still employing him and I imagine he gets a pretty good salary there.

The money will be a nice bonus, but it feels like he would rather tell his story and I think he will try to do it more tastefully even if it means fewer viewers.

I mean before IEWU he was actually best known for his TED talk and book, Man Enough. He even dydca version for kids. Man Enough is very personal with a lot of anecdotes from his own life -- he clearly wrote it himself, even if he worked closely with ghost co-author. I definitely think he considered himself, and was considered, an author before this whole fiasco.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell-all books are so boomer coded. Especially since he has all of the receipts, I bet Baldoni does a tell-all docu-series on this and he makes a boatload of money. If that boring nitwit Megan Markle can get $60 million from Netflix for an awful cooking show nobody watched, why couldn't Baldoni get $100 million for something like this? It'll break the internet.

People will only buy this if it dishes dirt. No one actually cares about Baldoni but his book might make a splash if it includes gossip/details about Blake and Ryan not already in the press. Which would be hard because so much already came out in discovery. If it's just a rehash of that, no one will care.

Also Baldoni has an annoying personality so he needs to be careful now. Right now Blake is seen as the loser and villain. But if he does a splashy book, even one that has info making Blake look bad, but people find him annoying or off-putting in the promotion, they will turn on him. He's been very quiet through all this, which is to his benefit, but it creates a risk of spoiling the good will if people decide they don't really like him after all.

I’m not a fan of Baldoni, but I don’t think he will do a tell all with sordid tabloid like details. He’s not an idiot and he’s not going to go gloat if he hasn’t already while Blake is running around at the met gala and fendi. We saw a lot of texts from him during a time when someone was actively trying to destroy his life and he seemed pretty centered and even-keeled. He seems to take his religion seriously and he and Jamey have seemed to take a lot of comfort in prayer and their family and working on the projects that they love. I don’t think he’s out for revenge.

NAG did a really nice interview with Kevin Fritz from the wayfarer legal team. Fritz is the anti Bryan Friedman. Not flashy, doesn’t seem at all knowledgeable or enamored with celebrity culture, very calm, seems like a nerdy lawyer. He said that from the start through the end, Jamey and Justin wanted the opportunity to get their side out, and if meant going all the way to a jury trial, they knew the risks but they could sleep at night knowing they got their side out and that was what was decided. They did not wish this to be brought on them, but it was and that’s how they dealt with it.

I don’t get the vibe he wants to punish Blake but I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted to tell a story on his terms and take less money even if it was not salacious. I still think he could have a compelling story showing their strategy, behind the scenes with family that has nothing to do with Blake, and what some of the behind-the-scenes looked like. Agree it won’t get 100 million but he has enough interest in him that I still think he could get a few more million for this and I think it could be done tastefully.

If it's tasteful and restrained it will not sell. He might get a few million to write it, but it's not going to sell without dirt and fireworks. His fan basis is rabidly anti-Blake and I don't think they will buy his book in large numbers without some red meat in that respect. He might have a different feeling/perspective, but his fan base is pretty clear about what they want.

I actually think an "unauthorized" account from some of the CCs could sell better.

I’d be surprised if he did a book, he’s a director and producer and has dedicated his career to storytelling through film, so a documentary would probably be the forum he would choose.

Time will tell, but I just don’t see him going the salacious route. And I think he would rather get less money. He actually doesn’t really need the money. People are kind of missing that. He’s literally from a billionaire family and he made at least 35 million from it ends with us. And Steve is still employing him and I imagine he gets a pretty good salary there.

The money will be a nice bonus, but it feels like he would rather tell his story and I think he will try to do it more tastefully even if it means fewer viewers.

I mean before IEWU he was actually best known for his TED talk and book, Man Enough. He even dydca version for kids. Man Enough is very personal with a lot of anecdotes from his own life -- he clearly wrote it himself, even if he worked closely with ghost co-author. I definitely think he considered himself, and was considered, an author before this whole fiasco.

True. I guess he could do a book. I feel like documentary would be more compelling.

Either way, probably not anything Blake is looking forward to.

[Anonymous]

For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell-all books are so boomer coded. Especially since he has all of the receipts, I bet Baldoni does a tell-all docu-series on this and he makes a boatload of money. If that boring nitwit Megan Markle can get $60 million from Netflix for an awful cooking show nobody watched, why couldn't Baldoni get $100 million for something like this? It'll break the internet.

People will only buy this if it dishes dirt. No one actually cares about Baldoni but his book might make a splash if it includes gossip/details about Blake and Ryan not already in the press. Which would be hard because so much already came out in discovery. If it's just a rehash of that, no one will care.

Also Baldoni has an annoying personality so he needs to be careful now. Right now Blake is seen as the loser and villain. But if he does a splashy book, even one that has info making Blake look bad, but people find him annoying or off-putting in the promotion, they will turn on him. He's been very quiet through all this, which is to his benefit, but it creates a risk of spoiling the good will if people decide they don't really like him after all.

I’m not a fan of Baldoni, but I don’t think he will do a tell all with sordid tabloid like details. He’s not an idiot and he’s not going to go gloat if he hasn’t already while Blake is running around at the met gala and fendi. We saw a lot of texts from him during a time when someone was actively trying to destroy his life and he seemed pretty centered and even-keeled. He seems to take his religion seriously and he and Jamey have seemed to take a lot of comfort in prayer and their family and working on the projects that they love. I don’t think he’s out for revenge.

NAG did a really nice interview with Kevin Fritz from the wayfarer legal team. Fritz is the anti Bryan Friedman. Not flashy, doesn’t seem at all knowledgeable or enamored with celebrity culture, very calm, seems like a nerdy lawyer. He said that from the start through the end, Jamey and Justin wanted the opportunity to get their side out, and if meant going all the way to a jury trial, they knew the risks but they could sleep at night knowing they got their side out and that was what was decided. They did not wish this to be brought on them, but it was and that’s how they dealt with it.

I don’t get the vibe he wants to punish Blake but I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted to tell a story on his terms and take less money even if it was not salacious. I still think he could have a compelling story showing their strategy, behind the scenes with family that has nothing to do with Blake, and what some of the behind-the-scenes looked like. Agree it won’t get 100 million but he has enough interest in him that I still think he could get a few more million for this and I think it could be done tastefully.

A couple million? C- and D-list comedians are getting 5 to 20 million for “comedy” specials nobody watches. A documentary series on this will be worth major money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

It's more nuanced than that. Blake's sexual harassment claims were not dismissed because she lied or even because the judge determined that the behavior is definitively not harassment. In fact the vast majority of what she alleges is fully agreed upon by both parties, from early in the litigation. The question was always whether those allegations constituted a hostile work environment. This is the standard course of a hostile work environment case and if you are familiar with them, they often turn on things like how comments and behaviors are interpreted. Some of Blake's allegations would never have been considered SH even had she been deemed an employee (Baldoni talking about her dead father, the interactions that occurred before filming started, for instance), but others the court agreed would normally be considered genuine issues of fact for the jury, such as whether Baldoni's use of the word "hot" to describe Blake and others, Heath entering her trailer while she was naked without her permission, and the situation surrounding the filming of the birth scene.

The judge found that but for the independent contractor issue, these incidents could be found by a jury to constitute SH, which means Blake brought her lawsuit in good faith. Something Baldoni himself has acknowledge both in evidence that came out during discovery (stating "she really believes" she was wronged in text messages) and in the statement that accompanied their settlement, which acknowledged that Blake's claims had a right to be heard. That's not a statement acknowledging she was harassed, clearly, but it does acknowledge the validity of her claims and her lawsuit. It wasn't frivolous or harassing.

However, the countersuit brought by Baldoni & Co. does not appear to have been brought in good faith. That lawsuit was tossed for failing to state even one valid claim against any of its defendants. The countersuit was accompanied by an "Exhibit A" which was used to portray Lively as a liar but which the judge said himself in the first hearing to the case was not appropriate. But this Exhibit and the countersuit were posted on a website and members of the press and content creators were steered towards it, to use it in negative coverage of Blake. The discovery in the case even showed Baldoni's team, including Steve Sarowitz, discussing how a content creator, Sloane Stephens, would discuss aspects of the countersuit in her coverage in order to make it look "organic" and not dictated by Baldoni's team.

The intent of 47.1 is to prevent good faith claims of SH and SA from being silenced by defendants willing to due and smear plaintiffs until it is simply not worth it to proceed with valid allegations, because we have a public interest in having good faith plaintiffs allowed to prosecute valid claims. I'll leave it to the judge to determine if the facts of this case fit the intent and requirements of 47.1, but to quote the jointly agreed upon settlement statement, everyone here agrees Blake's concerns deserved to be heard. But if that's true, then why did Baldoni sue her for defamation to the tune of 400m when she sought to air those claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

It's more nuanced than that. Blake's sexual harassment claims were not dismissed because she lied or even because the judge determined that the behavior is definitively not harassment. In fact the vast majority of what she alleges is fully agreed upon by both parties, from early in the litigation. The question was always whether those allegations constituted a hostile work environment. This is the standard course of a hostile work environment case and if you are familiar with them, they often turn on things like how comments and behaviors are interpreted. Some of Blake's allegations would never have been considered SH even had she been deemed an employee (Baldoni talking about her dead father, the interactions that occurred before filming started, for instance), but others the court agreed would normally be considered genuine issues of fact for the jury, such as whether Baldoni's use of the word "hot" to describe Blake and others, Heath entering her trailer while she was naked without her permission, and the situation surrounding the filming of the birth scene.

The judge found that but for the independent contractor issue, these incidents could be found by a jury to constitute SH, which means Blake brought her lawsuit in good faith. Something Baldoni himself has acknowledge both in evidence that came out during discovery (stating "she really believes" she was wronged in text messages) and in the statement that accompanied their settlement, which acknowledged that Blake's claims had a right to be heard. That's not a statement acknowledging she was harassed, clearly, but it does acknowledge the validity of her claims and her lawsuit. It wasn't frivolous or harassing.

However, the countersuit brought by Baldoni & Co. does not appear to have been brought in good faith. That lawsuit was tossed for failing to state even one valid claim against any of its defendants. The countersuit was accompanied by an "Exhibit A" which was used to portray Lively as a liar but which the judge said himself in the first hearing to the case was not appropriate. But this Exhibit and the countersuit were posted on a website and members of the press and content creators were steered towards it, to use it in negative coverage of Blake. The discovery in the case even showed Baldoni's team, including Steve Sarowitz, discussing how a content creator, Sloane Stephens, would discuss aspects of the countersuit in her coverage in order to make it look "organic" and not dictated by Baldoni's team.

The intent of 47.1 is to prevent good faith claims of SH and SA from being silenced by defendants willing to due and smear plaintiffs until it is simply not worth it to proceed with valid allegations, because we have a public interest in having good faith plaintiffs allowed to prosecute valid claims. I'll leave it to the judge to determine if the facts of this case fit the intent and requirements of 47.1, but to quote the jointly agreed upon settlement statement, everyone here agrees Blake's concerns deserved to be heard. But if that's true, then why did Baldoni sue her for defamation to the tune of 400m when she sought to air those claims?

The big difference here is that if Blake had kept this as a legal matter what you laid out might make sense but Justin didn’t sue her for defamation because she bought her claims to court. We aren’t stupid. There was a matter of a very public New York Times article written by the me too journalist which was very one-sided? Maybe you didn’t see that. Oh, and New York Times lifted the paywall to get maximum exposure - further they worked on it for months and they gave Justin about 12 hours or so to respond.

Blake and Ryan aren’t interested in letting the courts decide anything, giving someone a fair trial, standing up for the rights of women…..they wanted the New York Times article to unfairly destroy a man and his livelihood because Blake has had a series of failed businesses and bad publicity her whole career. They were absolutely shocked and unprepared for this to go any further. That’s why as soon as Justin had a lawyer go to the press and put up a website they tried to put a gag order. Then it was explained to these two morons that that’s not how court works. It’s not a people magazine editor that they can pay to place nice stories….both sides actually get to have a say. OOPS.

They are used to controlling publicity. They were in over their skis when they got to federal court.

[Anonymous]

Blake is frankly lucky the parent companies to her $hitty and soon to be defunct hair and drink companies aren’t suing her. She didn’t do anything to rehabilitate her reputation such as apologize to journalists or fans for her tone deaf interviews and now we have a plethora of evidence that she orchestrated all the IEWU drama herself just as the Sony executives said. She wasn’t looking out for her brands when she had people unfollowing Justin or sending him to the basement at the premiere.

She acted selfishly and recklessly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

It's more nuanced than that. Blake's sexual harassment claims were not dismissed because she lied or even because the judge determined that the behavior is definitively not harassment. In fact the vast majority of what she alleges is fully agreed upon by both parties, from early in the litigation. The question was always whether those allegations constituted a hostile work environment. This is the standard course of a hostile work environment case and if you are familiar with them, they often turn on things like how comments and behaviors are interpreted. Some of Blake's allegations would never have been considered SH even had she been deemed an employee (Baldoni talking about her dead father, the interactions that occurred before filming started, for instance), but others the court agreed would normally be considered genuine issues of fact for the jury, such as whether Baldoni's use of the word "hot" to describe Blake and others, Heath entering her trailer while she was naked without her permission, and the situation surrounding the filming of the birth scene.

The judge found that but for the independent contractor issue, these incidents could be found by a jury to constitute SH, which means Blake brought her lawsuit in good faith. Something Baldoni himself has acknowledge both in evidence that came out during discovery (stating "she really believes" she was wronged in text messages) and in the statement that accompanied their settlement, which acknowledged that Blake's claims had a right to be heard. That's not a statement acknowledging she was harassed, clearly, but it does acknowledge the validity of her claims and her lawsuit. It wasn't frivolous or harassing.

However, the countersuit brought by Baldoni & Co. does not appear to have been brought in good faith. That lawsuit was tossed for failing to state even one valid claim against any of its defendants. The countersuit was accompanied by an "Exhibit A" which was used to portray Lively as a liar but which the judge said himself in the first hearing to the case was not appropriate. But this Exhibit and the countersuit were posted on a website and members of the press and content creators were steered towards it, to use it in negative coverage of Blake. The discovery in the case even showed Baldoni's team, including Steve Sarowitz, discussing how a content creator, Sloane Stephens, would discuss aspects of the countersuit in her coverage in order to make it look "organic" and not dictated by Baldoni's team.

The intent of 47.1 is to prevent good faith claims of SH and SA from being silenced by defendants willing to due and smear plaintiffs until it is simply not worth it to proceed with valid allegations, because we have a public interest in having good faith plaintiffs allowed to prosecute valid claims. I'll leave it to the judge to determine if the facts of this case fit the intent and requirements of 47.1, but to quote the jointly agreed upon settlement statement, everyone here agrees Blake's concerns deserved to be heard. But if that's true, then why did Baldoni sue her for defamation to the tune of 400m when she sought to air those claims?

The big difference here is that if Blake had kept this as a legal matter what you laid out might make sense but Justin didn’t sue her for defamation because she bought her claims to court. We aren’t stupid. There was a matter of a very public New York Times article written by the me too journalist which was very one-sided? Maybe you didn’t see that. Oh, and New York Times lifted the paywall to get maximum exposure - further they worked on it for months and they gave Justin about 12 hours or so to respond.

Blake and Ryan aren’t interested in letting the courts decide anything, giving someone a fair trial, standing up for the rights of women…..they wanted the New York Times article to unfairly destroy a man and his livelihood because Blake has had a series of failed businesses and bad publicity her whole career. They were absolutely shocked and unprepared for this to go any further. That’s why as soon as Justin had a lawyer go to the press and put up a website they tried to put a gag order. Then it was explained to these two morons that that’s not how court works. It’s not a people magazine editor that they can pay to place nice stories….both sides actually get to have a say. OOPS.

They are used to controlling publicity. They were in over their skis when they got to federal court.

I would really really like to have seen the defamation case against the NYT appealed. Did justin et al waive their right to appeal in the settlement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

It's more nuanced than that. Blake's sexual harassment claims were not dismissed because she lied or even because the judge determined that the behavior is definitively not harassment. In fact the vast majority of what she alleges is fully agreed upon by both parties, from early in the litigation. The question was always whether those allegations constituted a hostile work environment. This is the standard course of a hostile work environment case and if you are familiar with them, they often turn on things like how comments and behaviors are interpreted. Some of Blake's allegations would never have been considered SH even had she been deemed an employee (Baldoni talking about her dead father, the interactions that occurred before filming started, for instance), but others the court agreed would normally be considered genuine issues of fact for the jury, such as whether Baldoni's use of the word "hot" to describe Blake and others, Heath entering her trailer while she was naked without her permission, and the situation surrounding the filming of the birth scene.

The judge found that but for the independent contractor issue, these incidents could be found by a jury to constitute SH, which means Blake brought her lawsuit in good faith. Something Baldoni himself has acknowledge both in evidence that came out during discovery (stating "she really believes" she was wronged in text messages) and in the statement that accompanied their settlement, which acknowledged that Blake's claims had a right to be heard. That's not a statement acknowledging she was harassed, clearly, but it does acknowledge the validity of her claims and her lawsuit. It wasn't frivolous or harassing.

However, the countersuit brought by Baldoni & Co. does not appear to have been brought in good faith. That lawsuit was tossed for failing to state even one valid claim against any of its defendants. The countersuit was accompanied by an "Exhibit A" which was used to portray Lively as a liar but which the judge said himself in the first hearing to the case was not appropriate. But this Exhibit and the countersuit were posted on a website and members of the press and content creators were steered towards it, to use it in negative coverage of Blake. The discovery in the case even showed Baldoni's team, including Steve Sarowitz, discussing how a content creator, Sloane Stephens, would discuss aspects of the countersuit in her coverage in order to make it look "organic" and not dictated by Baldoni's team.

The intent of 47.1 is to prevent good faith claims of SH and SA from being silenced by defendants willing to due and smear plaintiffs until it is simply not worth it to proceed with valid allegations, because we have a public interest in having good faith plaintiffs allowed to prosecute valid claims. I'll leave it to the judge to determine if the facts of this case fit the intent and requirements of 47.1, but to quote the jointly agreed upon settlement statement, everyone here agrees Blake's concerns deserved to be heard. But if that's true, then why did Baldoni sue her for defamation to the tune of 400m when she sought to air those claims?

The big difference here is that if Blake had kept this as a legal matter what you laid out might make sense but Justin didn’t sue her for defamation because she bought her claims to court. We aren’t stupid. There was a matter of a very public New York Times article written by the me too journalist which was very one-sided? Maybe you didn’t see that. Oh, and New York Times lifted the paywall to get maximum exposure - further they worked on it for months and they gave Justin about 12 hours or so to respond.

Blake and Ryan aren’t interested in letting the courts decide anything, giving someone a fair trial, standing up for the rights of women…..they wanted the New York Times article to unfairly destroy a man and his livelihood because Blake has had a series of failed businesses and bad publicity her whole career. They were absolutely shocked and unprepared for this to go any further. That’s why as soon as Justin had a lawyer go to the press and put up a website they tried to put a gag order. Then it was explained to these two morons that that’s not how court works. It’s not a people magazine editor that they can pay to place nice stories….both sides actually get to have a say. OOPS.

They are used to controlling publicity. They were in over their skis when they got to federal court.

I would really really like to have seen the defamation case against the NYT appealed. Did justin et al waive their right to appeal in the settlement?

Yes, that's how most people are reading it - the settlement says WP waived all their rights to appeal in the case, not just the claims against Lively. NYT has already filed in the NY state court to take judicial notice of the settlement, so we'll soon find out if the state court agrees with that interpretation, and makes its decision on their anti-SLAPP motion. WP had previously argued that the federal case wasn't final yet, because they could still appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

It's more nuanced than that. Blake's sexual harassment claims were not dismissed because she lied or even because the judge determined that the behavior is definitively not harassment. In fact the vast majority of what she alleges is fully agreed upon by both parties, from early in the litigation. The question was always whether those allegations constituted a hostile work environment. This is the standard course of a hostile work environment case and if you are familiar with them, they often turn on things like how comments and behaviors are interpreted. Some of Blake's allegations would never have been considered SH even had she been deemed an employee (Baldoni talking about her dead father, the interactions that occurred before filming started, for instance), but others the court agreed would normally be considered genuine issues of fact for the jury, such as whether Baldoni's use of the word "hot" to describe Blake and others, Heath entering her trailer while she was naked without her permission, and the situation surrounding the filming of the birth scene.

The judge found that but for the independent contractor issue, these incidents could be found by a jury to constitute SH, which means Blake brought her lawsuit in good faith. Something Baldoni himself has acknowledge both in evidence that came out during discovery (stating "she really believes" she was wronged in text messages) and in the statement that accompanied their settlement, which acknowledged that Blake's claims had a right to be heard. That's not a statement acknowledging she was harassed, clearly, but it does acknowledge the validity of her claims and her lawsuit. It wasn't frivolous or harassing.

However, the countersuit brought by Baldoni & Co. does not appear to have been brought in good faith. That lawsuit was tossed for failing to state even one valid claim against any of its defendants. The countersuit was accompanied by an "Exhibit A" which was used to portray Lively as a liar but which the judge said himself in the first hearing to the case was not appropriate. But this Exhibit and the countersuit were posted on a website and members of the press and content creators were steered towards it, to use it in negative coverage of Blake. The discovery in the case even showed Baldoni's team, including Steve Sarowitz, discussing how a content creator, Sloane Stephens, would discuss aspects of the countersuit in her coverage in order to make it look "organic" and not dictated by Baldoni's team.

The intent of 47.1 is to prevent good faith claims of SH and SA from being silenced by defendants willing to due and smear plaintiffs until it is simply not worth it to proceed with valid allegations, because we have a public interest in having good faith plaintiffs allowed to prosecute valid claims. I'll leave it to the judge to determine if the facts of this case fit the intent and requirements of 47.1, but to quote the jointly agreed upon settlement statement, everyone here agrees Blake's concerns deserved to be heard. But if that's true, then why did Baldoni sue her for defamation to the tune of 400m when she sought to air those claims?

The big difference here is that if Blake had kept this as a legal matter what you laid out might make sense but Justin didn’t sue her for defamation because she bought her claims to court. We aren’t stupid. There was a matter of a very public New York Times article written by the me too journalist which was very one-sided? Maybe you didn’t see that. Oh, and New York Times lifted the paywall to get maximum exposure - further they worked on it for months and they gave Justin about 12 hours or so to respond.

Blake and Ryan aren’t interested in letting the courts decide anything, giving someone a fair trial, standing up for the rights of women…..they wanted the New York Times article to unfairly destroy a man and his livelihood because Blake has had a series of failed businesses and bad publicity her whole career. They were absolutely shocked and unprepared for this to go any further. That’s why as soon as Justin had a lawyer go to the press and put up a website they tried to put a gag order. Then it was explained to these two morons that that’s not how court works. It’s not a people magazine editor that they can pay to place nice stories….both sides actually get to have a say. OOPS.

They are used to controlling publicity. They were in over their skis when they got to federal court.

I would really really like to have seen the defamation case against the NYT appealed. Did justin et al waive their right to appeal in the settlement?

Yes, that's how most people are reading it - the settlement says WP waived all their rights to appeal in the case, not just the claims against Lively. NYT has already filed in the NY state court to take judicial notice of the settlement, so we'll soon find out if the state court agrees with that interpretation, and makes its decision on their anti-SLAPP motion. WP had previously argued that the federal case wasn't final yet, because they could still appeal.

Legally I don’t think NYT is still in the fray. But with the Joneswork case ongoing we can expect to hear more about Vanzan which appeared to be done so they could get the article (the paper needed a legal way to be viewing all the texts etc.).

The public sentiment was overwhelmingly negative regarding Vanzan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

To put it in summary -- her claims were tossed not because the court made any findings about them -- it never got to that --- it was tossed on other grounds. So that has no bearing at all on the 47.1. It was intended exactly for this type of situation. A common tactic when accused on SH is to sue the complaining person with no real basis. This law was meant to stop that or at least limit it. So yes this is what the law was for. Unclear what will happen. Everything from nothing to a large award is on the table as this is a new law. I suspect this will also be settled at some point. I doubt this goes all the way.