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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can one of the many lawyers who comment regularly on this thread explain to those of us who don't understand the legal ramifications why, if she can still ask and receive for millions of dollars in damages (no just lawyer fees) without concern that it could be appealed, Wayfarer settled? If it went to trial, Lively could have been awarded millions. Now that it doesn't go to trial, they could have the same consequence. What did they gain?[/quote]

Yes.

So there was Lively's original lawsuit (Lively v. Wayfarer, let's call it "Blake's Complaint"). This is the lawsuit that kicked the whole thing off. This is the lawsuit where a significant number of her allegations were dismissed last month, with a few remaining allegations that were going to go to trial (I will leave it up to interpretation as to whether these were "minor remaining" or "the core of her case" -- I think reasonable people can disagree on that point). This is also the case that has been settled, so the trial won't happen and the case will be closed. Reports are that no money changed hands regarding this case, so Blake will not receive any money from this case, including presumably attorney's fees.

However, after Blake's Complaint was filed, Baldoni and Wayfarer countersued (let's call this "Baldoni's Complaint"). Baldoni allege a variety of things in his countersuit, but a central argument was that Blake and others (including Ryan Reynolds and Leslie Sloane) had defamed Baldoni. The fact that Baldoni's Complaint alleged defamation is important, remember it. Baldoni's Complaint, however, was dismissed last summer for a variety of reasons, including a pretty blatant group pleading issue (the complaint never makes clear who is being accused of which allegation and what facts he is offering to support individualized causes of action, which is a no-no -- defendants must understand what they are being accused of and why, so that they may defend themselves) and that dismissal became final in fall 2025 -- he had a chance to amend and refile at least some of his claims but chose not to take it.

After Baldoni's Complaint was dismissed, Blake filed something called a 47.1 motion ("Blake's 47.1 Motion"). This is a motion based on a relatively new California law called by some the "MeToo Law." The goal of this law is to prevent abusers and harassers from silencing their victims by simply suing them for defamation whenever the victims speak out, or sue, their alleged abusers/harassers. The law protects people who make "good faith claims" of sexual harassment, abuse, or discrimination "without malice". What that means in layperson speaks it that the accuser really believes their claims and is making them due to that belief, not just to punish or hurt another person. How does the law protect them? Well, with an anti-retaliation clause that says if the accuser wins a defamation lawsuit against them brought by the person they have accused, the accuser is entitled to significant damages -- recovery of attorney's fees and both treble and punitive damages, which can add up to a LOT of money.

So remember how Baldoni's Complaint had, as its central premise, the idea that Blake had defamed him by bringing these allegations against him? That's the defamation suit. And remember how Baldoni's Complaint was dismissed by the court? That, according to the 47.1 motion, was Blake winning the defamation suit (this is a bit tricky because there's a question as to whether Blake won "on the merits" or "on a technicality" -- IMO it was a mixture of both but this could be very critical to the 47.1 motion). Blake's 47.1 motion has a lot of backup -- a bunch of advocacy groups who work on behalf of survivors of sexual violence and harassment filed amicus briefs (that's like a letter to the court supporting one of the parties from a person or group who isn't directly involved in the litigation but has a vested interest in its outcome). This is a Big Deal because 47.1 hasn't really been tested before, and this case could (emphasis *could*) be influential in how it is applied in the future.

So even though Lively's Complaint has been settled, and Baldoni's Complaint has been dismissed, there is this open question of the Blake's 47.1 Motion. The settlement doesn't touch it, but does do something weird -- it disallows either party from appealing the outcome of the 47.1 motion. Why? Good question! No one knows. I have a suspicion I may post in another comment. But the upshot is that if the judge decides the motion in Blake's favor and awards her damages (which the statute creating the cause of action makes very likely because it's sort of the entire point of the law), then Baldoni and Wayfarer and all the other defendants can't do anything about it -- they will be court ordered to pay out. Of course, the same is true for Blake -- if the judge rules against her, then that's it, game over, and she gets nothing.

So to answer your question about what the benefit of the settlement is then? The main benefit is no more trial. This could be seen as a benefit for both sides, since trials are expensive and they both had risk exposure of embarrassment. Since Wayfarer was the defendant, they also get the benefit of not having any risk of Blake winning the trial, whereas Blake gives up the opportunity to win. Blake did get a kind of lukewarm admission as part of the settlement announcement (that her concerns "deserved to be heard") but that's not as good as money. So the settlement of Blake's Complaint has benefits for both, but is a net win for Wayfarer/Baldoni.

But this outcome is heavily mitigated by the fact that the settlement does not include Blake's 47.1 Motion. Judge's are usually less unpredictable than juries, but it is very hard to predict how Liman will rule in this case for several reasons. One is that there is a new law, so you can't look at a bunch of precedent to get a sense of what he will decide. Another is that he's a federal judge in NY and he will have to apply CA law here, which can be tricky. There is some chance he could argue the CA law doesn't apply, but I think that's unlikely -- Wayfarer is a CA company, Baldoni resided in CA at the time of Blake's Complaint, the Complaint was originally filed with a CA agency. That's likely enough of a CA nexus to apply the law. But how? There is also that issue I mentioned above as to whether a dismissal of a defamation lawsuit for technical reasons (or partially technical reasons, as I would argue) constitutes a win for the purposes of 47.1. And then there is the question of damages and how Liman would apply the damages provision of 47.1 if he were to find Blake met the requirements for application of the law.

So to summarize, getting rid of Blake's Complaint is unquestionably a positive for Wayfarer and Baldoni, but the 47.1 motion is a pretty enormous loose end with a huge potential cost if it doesn't go their way. But had they proceeded with the trial, they would have been subject to risk of a payout for both Blake's Complaint AND Blake's 47.1 Motion. Now they just risk the 47.1. We shall see what happens. It's definitely not over yet.[/quote]

A lot of words to say “I”m not a lawyer, but I play one on DCUM.”[/quote]

Well, I'm the PP that asked the question and very much appreciate the detailed reply. Thanks![/quote]

You like receiving inaccurate info? Weird.  [/quote]

It was accurate, you are just one of those posters who needs all info to be filtered through a shamelessly pro-Baldoni lens and therefore view a balanced explanation as "biased".[/quote]

[/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