Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I just read Wallace’s complaint. It’s short. Can anyone weigh in on what they think of it? Someone up thread said it was exceedingly thin, but I’m curious about why. Variety links to the complaint in their article about it. [/quote]

Okay, interesting. He is seeking both a declaratory judgment and damages in his defamation claim. I'm just skimming because I have to leave in 10 minutes, but looks like in the DJ request he's asking the court to issue a declaration that says Lively essentially can't sue him. Premise appears to be that since he never had any contract with Lively and they never actually had a professional relationship, he can't be joined in a lawsuit alleging harassment/retaliation or anything related to an employment contract. Which actually makes sense and is probably why she didn't actually name him in the complaint she filed to begin with.

He's also seeking defamation based on being named in that precursor to a complaint that got leaked to the NYT. He's saying he lost work/business and had his professional rep damaged by her allegations there.

It's a very bare bones complaint so unlike the others that have been filed related to these events, he doesn't include a bunch of evidence. This is what most complaints look like though -- appending all the texts and evidence is not typical because usually you file the complaint and then use discovery to collect evidence. Sometimes a complaint will include a critical piece of evidence like a copy of a contract but often it will just have the alleged facts.

Based on super quick review I'd say that he's likely to get the declaratory judgment unless Lively can explain what their relationship is that would justify a lawsuit (and also there may be some aspect of employment law that would allow them to extend the lawsuit to him, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert). It seems straightforward and makes sense. She hasn't sued him yet so I don't know how much this matters.

As for the defamation all the same issues apply as with the Baldoni case except that it would be hard to argue Wallace is a public figure. So lower standard. I'd have to review exactly what Lively's filings said about Wallace to judge that. Remember truth is a defense to defamation so if she can prove he did what she says, that's enough. But I can't remember exactly what she says so I don't know, maybe it's really over the top and speculative.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics