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]Is there some reason why Lively couldn't have filed the 47.1 claim in California state court like the NYT did with their anti-SLAAP? This is so messy.
[/quote]

It's really not that messy. I don't understand why people are so freaked out about a federal court applying a state law. This happens daily. I get this law is new and untested but that doesn't really change the fact that a federal court can of course apply a state law in a federal case.

Another reason I don't get this argument is that Baldoni's defamation claims against Lively were dismissed under California law, and [b]Baldoni/Wayfarer are the ones who requested the court apply California law in its consideration of the motion to dismiss.[/b] Lively didn't object to this (NYT, Reynolds, and Sloane did and wanted NY law applied to them as defendants) and CA law was applied.

It is nonsensical, after requesting and agreeing to the application of CA law to their defamation action in a federal court, to then complain that the court cannot possibly apply a CA law (47.1) to reward damages based on the outcome of that action.

This is one of the places where I feel Bryan Freedman failed to understand what this case was actually about and, in engaging in his usual PR-based practice to try and get Baldoni exonerated in the public eye, missed the forrest for the trees. Freedman has seemed unconcerned or even unaware of the 47.1 threat from the start, even though what he did in filing the 400m defamation action (which was poorly written and poorly argued) falls so squarely within what 47.1 was passed to address. It was a huge oversight. I think he really dropped the ball and that it's going to come back to bite him and Wayfarer.[/quote]

This is a ridiculous post in several respects:

(1) the Court has already found that the California law has limited extraterritoriality;

(2) WF has already successfully argued that California law does not apply to Blake's sexual harassment claims because the alleged conduct occurred in NY;

(3) "People" aren't worried about the application of 47.1 in Federal Court -- the judge has independently requested briefing on how 47.1 should be applied given Federal Rule 54.  Further, the Supreme Court just issued a case earlier this year that specifically addresses what should happen when a state rule conflicts with a federal rule and a case is brought in federal court.

(4) Lively is overreaching and trying to get 47.1 applied in a Texas federal court in a related case where the dismissal was based on jurisdiction.  Liman's decision will be on the scenario before him, but very likely he is aware of and considering the effect of his ruling on that case as well.

[/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