Blake Lively Wins Legal Fees From Justin Baldoni in Court Ruling

What the Court Decided

A federal judge ruled Friday that Blake Lively is entitled to have her legal fees paid by Justin Baldoni, but she will not receive compensatory or punitive damages under a California law designed to protect sexual harassment victims from retaliatory defamation claims. The order resolves the last legal issue in the case after Lively and Baldoni reached a settlement last month to avoid a trial over alleged sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us.

Under the settlement, Baldoni waived his right to appeal the court's earlier dismissal of his $400 million lawsuit against Lively. The deal did not include monetary compensation for Lively but left open the possibility for her to recover legal costs and pursue damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, which went into effect in 2024.

Key Details of the Ruling

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman wrote that the California law “does not create an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the parties.” He added, “It instead establishes a narrow exception to the usual litigation process for a specific and limited kind of relief. Compensatory and punitive damages do not fall within that exception.”

The court granted Lively's request for attorneys' fees because she acted “without malice” when she made her sexual misconduct complaint. “Allegations are insufficient on their own to demonstrate that statements were in fact made with malice,” the judge wrote. “That determination requires some evidence.”

Now, the court will assess how much in legal fees Baldoni must pay. Lively's lawyers will submit a breakdown of their hourly rates and the time they worked on the case. Given that Lively was represented by heavyweight litigators Michael Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, the bill could be substantial.

Public Impact and Reactions

Lively's legal team said in a statement, “Today's ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant” under the California law. They added that Lively is gratified to show how the statute creates “a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.”

Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, countered, “We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and a smear campaign that never happened. Ms. Lively demanded over 300 million in fees and damages, had 10 of her 13 claims dismissed, she then chose to settle and received nothing.” He maintained, “There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign. The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning.”

What Comes Next in the Case

While the court denied damages in this ruling, it left open the possibility for Lively to seek additional damages through another lawsuit or counterclaim against Baldoni or Wayfarer, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The settlement agreement between the parties expressly preserves Lively's rights to obtain those damages. The case highlights the narrow scope of California's Section 47.1, which the court described as a limited exception rather than a broad remedy for defamation claims.

Via Hollywood Reporter.