Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Blake has been getting some bad headlines for people who aren’t paying that close of attention. It’s making it seem like Justin has won defamation claims against Ryan Reynolds, which a lot of people will just infer from the headlines that Ryan lied about him. Other headlines are saying Baldoni scored a victory in court.

It’s much more nuanced for people who are following the case, but most people aren’t. [/quote]

It isn’t nuanced at all, the Blake/Jones side  lost all of their motions that were decided by Liman over the past two days.  As many of us said at the time, those Rule 11 motions were not going to be granted, and were a bad move strategically.[/quote]

What? The court found for Lively on all of the Rule 11 claims except the one concerning the defamation claim against Reynolds. Liman formally reprimanded Freeman and Baldoni's other attorneys for making "frivolous" and "factually baseless" claims. He declined to grant sanctions but the legal finding is almost entirely in Lively's favor, and this is a key ruling because it puts Baldoni's lawyers on the back foot with Liman moving forward. It also could set up a finding of spoliation against Baldoni that would have major negative consequences for him.

Totally bizarre to call a motion that you one 90% of a "bad move strategically." That was a clear win for Lively.[/quote]

There were two Rule 11 motions.   Reynolds motion was a total loss. For the other, Blake was denied the relief she sought.  Those are both losses.

You are totally misrepresenting the reprimand.  The judge found that Freedman’s use of group  pleading led to claims being extended improperly to certain plaintiffs because he didn’t distinguish among them.  I believe that lawyers on both sides pointed this out as well at the time.  In any case, those claims were already dismissed months ago, so we already knew the judge believed them to be deficient.

[/quote]

Lively/Reynolds made multiple Rule 11 allegations. Liman treated them all together in one decision. In that decision, he declined to find a Rule 11 violation with regards to the defamation allegation against Reynolds, but he found violations on ALL other allegations.

"For purposes of Rule 11, however, what makes the civil extortion claim sanctionable is that the factual allegations do not support a claim for relief by Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or IEWUM against Lively or Reynolds. The four of them simply had no basis to sue Lively or Reynolds for civil extortion."

"The Wayfarer Parties have not identified even an arguable basis in law or fact for any Wayfarer Party other than Baldoni and Wayfarer to assert these claims, as no other party was implicated in the contractual relationship."

"But there was no conceivable basis upon which to allege the existence of a contractual relationship between Lively and Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel or Heath."

A court reprimand is a sanction -- that is the sanction he chose to award. He declined to award money sanctions because he concluded that neither Lively nor Reynolds suffered repetitional damage as a result of the violations (dubious, and he doesn't go into detail on his thinking here, but my sense based on his other statements is that he believes the repetitional damage to parties is a wash in this case) and because the court didn't suffer a burden from the frivolous claims (because they were fully dismissed and the discovery and other proceedings associated with them would have happened anyway under the other claims in the case).

That's not a loss. A motion like this is filed in service to their broader goals in the case. Here the goal was to highlight how Baldoni's lawyers have a history of lying and violating court rules. Liman agreed with them on those points. They can now reference this decision in support of other motions to reign in Baldoni's lawyers before and during trial. Any litigator would take this as a win.[/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