Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I feel that. It's up now! https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.166.0.pdf |
Anonymous
Maybe he just wants a son and its not that deep. |
Anonymous
So Reynolds will not get fully dismissed as a party, but he raises points in the reply that really point out holes in Freedman's case and make Freedman look bad, imho. Great, because I dislike Freedman so much. Here are a few of the points I liked -- some of these, like the first, may even make Freedman look like his team hasn't spent the time properly researching the law or drafting their complaint: (1) their first point in the summary that all the Freedman parties brought claims against Reynolds for everything even though only Baldoni, Heath, and Wayfarer even arguably have claims was a Rule 11 violation (as Freedman has alleged with no evidence claims against Reynolds by Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel, IEWUM, and TAG); the Court can take judicial notice of Baldoni's public statements and therefore decide that Reynold's statements that he was a predator were substantially true; (3) false light claim either doesn't exist under NY law or is straight up duplicative of defamation claim under CA law so should be dismissed; (4) Ps fail to respond to Reynolds point that they allege no damages caused by Reynolds, therefore their tortious interference and conspiracy claims must be dismissed; (5) whether Reynolds is entitled to attorneys fees or not, Freedman's dumb and wrong assertion that Reynolds would have had to bring a separate action for those makes Freedman look ridiculous and like he does not know the law; (6) good futility argument why leave to amend shouldn't be granted for at least some of these claims; and (7) makes fair arguments pointing out that whatever is alleged in the statement of alternative facts that Freedman thinks is important also needs to be alleged in the FAC to actually count, which he generally does not do. Oral argument on these motions should be interesting; I wonder if it will be open to the public to listen. Will Freedman lose his temper like he did in the PO arguments? Will his ego cause him to argue every motion to dismiss himself? |
Anonymous
| I can't believe Ryan and Blake threw their careers away to push this hoax scheme. This is so evil and twisted. And it begs the question, is it their first time trying to destroy someone's life for sport? Probably not, right? |
Anonymous
It can't be. It's really brazen. I think the "believe all women" era gave cover for a lot of psychopathic behavior. The idea thaf women never lie, spread rumors, gossip, etc is just insane. I'm a woman, and women have lied about me. Why wouldn't they lie about a man? Blake didn't detect the shift in the zeitgeist. She didn't realize that people were no longer agreeing to suspend all disbelief whenever a woman made a wild claim. I'm sure she took full advantage the minute that era kicked off. |
Anonymous
What podcast episode number is it? |
Anonymous
|
Actually Baldoni and Wayfarer are the ones here who have left a string of lawsuits in their wake from unhappy prior employees and exploited authors dying of cystic fibrosis. Baldoni looks like an abusive creep for these and they strengthen the criticism of him that Baldini commonly professed to lift up certain people to the public while actually in private he was completely exploiting them and breaking rules for their treatment which he surely should have been aware of.
Look at the way he tried to blame his treatment of Lively and the cast in neurodivergence. He was admitting that he did these things to Lively etc, but trying to blame it on something he wouldn’t have to take responsibility for. |
Anonymous
It’s Dec 2021 and it’s called xoxo, Blake lively |
Anonymous
| I honestly think Bryan Freedman is kind of a terrible lawyer. He’s more of a bully than a lawyer, and I have no respect for that, or for people who hire lawyers like that. Maybe this case will really knock Bryan Freedman down the ladder a bit, in which case I think justice will have been achieved. |
Anonymous
| Freedman actually made a statement that he wasn't filing any MTDs because he didn't want to give the Lively Parties a roadmap of the arguments needed to amend their complaint. While I think the main reason is that he doesn't have good grounds to dismiss (because Lively's case hinges on factual determinations, not because I think she's right), that tracked with me because it feels he's projecting what he's doing. The FAC is a mess and his responses generally boiled down to "well we can just amend it/we're getting more information." |
Anonymous
In other words, you think the Lively parties are giving Freedman a roadmap to how to amend his complaint by filing these MTDs? The thing is I do not think Freedman will be given leave to amend on some of these claims because it will be considered futile. He should lose a bunch of these. If Freedman had really put his back into it, he could have been working on actually amending the complaint and then filed the motion to amend along with his opposition to the last motion to dismiss, fixing all of the problems (if he could, though he cannot). If he had put his money where his big mouth was, he could have shown the judge how the complaint could be amended to fix the flaws pointed out in the MTDs. But of course he won’t do that, he’s too lazy and absolutely full of bluster, writing out checks with his big mouth that his a$$ can’t cash. His FAC really is an absolute mess and he has done nothing to show that he can fix it. |
Anonymous
|
Have not posted in a while on this thread but just want to note how pleased I am that people are catching on to the fact that Bryan Freedman is fraud. This will slowly become more and more obvious to more people, even the man non-lawyers supporting Justin who currently worship Freedman. The longer this case goes on, the more exposed he will be. If this were a criminal case, Baldoni would be entitled to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. It's not, though.
Baldoni's biggest mistakes in all of this: - Hiring Melissa Nathan - Working with Jed Wallace - Hiring Bryan Freedman And these are not unrelated events -- they hired Wallace and Freedman BECAUSE they'd hired Nathan (Wallace had worked with Nathan before, Freedman is Wallace's longtime lawyer). Also entirely possible they hired Nathan on Freedman's recommendation if they were talking to him prior to making that decision, because Wayfarer became aware of Freedman when he represented the screenwriter who sued them over Five Feet Apart. This is a FAFO situation and Baldoni/Wayfarer are the ones who are going to find out. |
Anonymous
Pretty much. The various MTDs are laying out the elements that haven't been met and other deficiencies and inconsistencies. For example in this Reynolds response, he notes the defamatory call from Reynolds to Greenberg wasn't even in the complaint at all but the timeline, so now Freedman can just edit it into the second amended complaint, if granted leave, and incorporate all the arguments made about actual malice, damages, etc. I guess Freedman believes this is a brilliant strategy. I'm not so sure. I think a lot will get dismissed (bearing in mind Wayfarer is generally claiming every Wayfarer party against every Lively party, even in cases where there's zero connection, eg, there's no allegation Reynolds defamed the PR reps). The only one I think has a chance to get dismissed totally is NYT. I think the Sloane/Vision PR "sexual assault" claim and the Reynolds "sexual predator"/interference with a contract claims will survive, and many of the claims against Lively, but everything should be narrowed down a lot. I am curious if the judge will buy into the theory that it was all a conspiracy so Wayfarer can claim against all Lively parties, and how he'll rule on extortion (I lean towards dismissing all the extortion claims entirely). |
Anonymous
From your lips .... I hope that it is so. Bryan Freedman's super aggro doublespeak pegs him as a liar and a fraud to me. A *real* lawyer doesn't write or speak like this. I wonder why Freedman is representing everyone except Wallace in this case? Maybe Wallace is represented by a Texas firm to help his severance/jurisdiction argument. I didn't know Nathan was so terrible; I guess that is what some of those texts were about, and I think Jones was really against hiring her because Nathan was so fishy. It will be reall interesting to see what the judge does with the MTDs. |
Anonymous
Agree, almost nothing will be dismissed, with the exception of the NY Times. The MTF standard favors plaintiffs to the extreme and leave to replead is freely given. Not many of the folks repeatedly giving their legal opinion are actually litigators and it shows. |