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]Lively's lawyers have not said they will recover millions in fees based on this motion. I don't know what their fees are, at some point they'll submit them to the court. We'll see.

What they have said is that in the decision Liman has outlined an avenue for Lively to pursue the damages he did not grant (because he can't grant damages without fact finding and there is no avenue to find fact in this case anymore). Liman has suggested Lively could pursue the damages portion of the 47.1 claim in CA court via and anti-SLAPP or similar motion, and her lawyers have suggested they intend to do that.

I have no idea if this would actually work or not, I'm just clarifying what her lawyers have actually said on the matter. They didn't suggest that they will be awarded millions in attorney's fees based on this motion, they haven't mentioned any numbers with regards to attorney's fees yet at all.[/quote]

I've defended Lively here, but I didn't read the decision that way. I am not going to read it again but I don't recall Limn mentioning that she could file for damages in California court. I read it as saying he couldn't grant them here, and then going back to the settlement, it says Lively retains all claims "in connection with," the pending 47.1 motion before Liman's court. So they'd have to litigate whether that includes separate motions in California if not expressly granted by the judge in the motion that was pending at settlement.

It would be a fool's errand, anyway, because Lively accepted that terrible settlement on her main claims, so why would she want to go to another court and litigate her damages using the same expert reports, but somehow having to carve out only the damages caused by Wayfarer's retaliatory lawsuit and not the underlying smear campaign that started at the premiere. I think the lawsuit did cause some damage by disseminating that exhibit A, but it's kind of like Lively's CRD... a spin to paint the opposite party in the absolute worst light but generally based on real text messages and facts. It would be a tough argument that essentially contextualizing some of her claims with their version of the truth caused damages. Plus, I'm not sure the California court would necessarily have to accept Liman's finding that Lively acted without malice for purposes of establishing damages, so that would mean re-litigating basically her entire claim.

I know you weren't exactly saying that Lively would be doing this but just trying to interpret what her lawyers said. I hope that was just puffery on their part to make it sound better. The attorney's fees was a modest win and at this point she should just take that win and let it be. The time to fight was at the trial in Lively v Wayfarer and she chose not to do that. [/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