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]Baldoni filed the $400M countersuit in January 2025 and it was tossed in November 2025. 11 months of white shoe attorneys is certainly not a small sum, it's likely several million dollars.[/quote]

But it wasn’t 11 months of work. Maybe a few weeks to draft and file the motion to dismiss and a few more weeks on preparing for the 47.1 fee hearing. Not millions of dollars and it has to be reasonable fees. [/quote]

Her lawyers fees will be deemed reasonable even if their rates are high, as long as they are still in line with rates of similar lawyers. She's a celebrity and this was an extremely high profile case, she is entitled to a highly qualified firm. The size of the defamation action will also influence that decision -- if someone filed a $400m defamation claims against you, would you go bargain hunting for lawyers?

It will definitely be more than a few weeks to draft the motion to dismiss. Also we're talking dozens of lawyers here.

They will almost certainly ask for more fees than Limam will grant, but it's not going to be a low number. It won't be 30 million but it's not going to 10k either.[/quote]

All of her fees will be reviewed for reasonableness and regardless of hourly rate, her team can’t claim it took them 3x the hours to do something like write a motion. Just because she has dozens of lawyers it doesn’t mean she can claim millions in fees and costs.

Again, none of this is money going to her. So she may save some $$$ but she still has to pay the rest of what is surely a large legal bill.

So again, explain how this is a victory?

[/quote]

It's a victory for 47.1. It validates the law. And importantly, it INvalidates Baldoni's sham defamation lawsuit by ensuring he and his friends are on the hook for every penny it cost. [/quote]

Far from it, Liman clearly felt there was serious Constitutional issues with 47.1.  He sidestepped them by not awarding punitive and treble damages on alternative grounds.   The fee shifting aspect of 47.1 was never the issue with it.  Even so, I don't think Liman's finding regarding lack of malice would have withstood appeal, and I think he knows that.  But he really didn't want to be the judge to find 47.1 unconstitutional so he sidestepped it.[/quote]

You are confiding fees and damages.

He awarded all fees. So yes, Baldoni will have to pay for all costs associated with his meritless defamation claim.[/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