Justin Baldoni's $400 Million Countersuit Against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds Dismissed

"The Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged," Judge Liman wrote in the opinion and order filing viewed by PEOPLE.

"The Wayfarer Parties have alleged that Reynolds and [publicist Leslie] Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer Parties of engaging in a smear campaign. But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane or the Times would have seriously doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law."

The judge added, "The Wayfarer Parties’ additional claims also fail. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety."

Attorneys for Baldoni did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment.

Lively's lawyers Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb call the decision a "total victory and a complete vindication" for the actress and the others whom "Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and The New York Times."

"As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," they say in the statement, adding that "we look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys’ fees, treble damages and punitive damages" from the Wayfarer parties who they say "perpetrated this abusive litigation.”

Sigrid McCawley, an attorney representing Lively's publicist Sloane, says in a statement, "Leslie Sloane has consistently said that she never defamed Baldoni or the Wayfarer Parties and she was wrongfully dragged into this lawsuit because the Wayfarer Parties wanted to actively harm Sloane’s reputation. Today’s decision by the Court makes clear that Sloane did nothing wrong. Sloane stands fully vindicated, and justice has been served."

The Times has long stood behind its coverage of Lively's complaint that was filed in December 2024 and led to her lawsuit against Baldoni. She has alleged sexual harassment and retaliation, which he denies, and her lawyers have previously called his subsequent countersuit "vengeful" and "meritless." A spokesperson for the newspaper previously said, "Our story was meticulously and responsibly reported."

Lively, 37, recently agreed to drop two of her claims against Baldoni, 41 — intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress — in a move her legal team described as a "routine part of the litigation process" for "streamlining and focusing" their case.

In March, Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman spoke out after Lively filed a motion to dismiss their countersuit, saying the actress' attempt to "dismiss herself from the self-concocted disaster she initiated is one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our legal system."

He added at the time, “Stringent rules are put into place to protect the innocent and allow individuals to rightfully defend themselves. Laws are not meant to be twisted and curated by privileged elites to fit their own personal agenda."

Lively and Baldoni's trial — during which both are expected to testify — is currently scheduled for March 2026.

This is going to be worse for Blake and Ryan, more than they think.

Baldoni’s claims for defamation were dismissed with prejudice. Not good news for him.

Why won't these unrepentant fame whores (including RR) just ride off into the sunset and leave the rest of us poor folk alone?

[quote] Lively and Baldoni's trial — during which both are expected to testify — is currently scheduled for March 2026.

If the suit was dismissed, why is there still a trial scheduled for March, 2026?

I’ve read two articles about this but I still don’t understand the grounds of this dismissal.

Is the judge saying Baldoni was alleging statements that were not in Lively’s original lawsuit, which was privileged so he couldn’t know what was in it? But if he was being sued by her, wouldn’t his lawyers have to have access to her allegations?

Any DL lawyers out there that can translate the legalese?

This is SO weird. I've been following the saga pretty closely and there's been no sign whatsoever that this was coming.

That judge needs to be looked into.

[quote]If the suit was dismissed, why is there still a trial scheduled for March, 2026?

R5. I believe the trial is still going forward in March 2026 because the original suit by Lively against Baldoni still stands. The only suit that was dismissed was Baldoni's countersuit against Lively.

I have no idea what's going on but here's a comment from Reddit:

[quote]Now that I had time to reassess Judge Liman didn’t just toss the claims, he basically handed Wayfarer a cheat sheet on what won’t fly. That’s a huge advantage. Now Freedman gets to refocus on sharp, new claims that actually stand a chance Bring in new claims based on discovery they've already got, Taylor's extortion, Vanzan and stuff that hasn’t gone public yet but both sides know is there

[quote]And maybe the biggest flex ? BF now knows exactly how Lively’s team defense now. How they are hiding behind privilege, calling it “hardball,” and playing the immunity card.

[quote]So now, he can build around that with facts that cut right through their usual defenses. Optic wise it's not good for Baldoni but we only have to wait 2 weeks before he refiles.

[quote]"Based on this sentence on May 9th letter from BF'. I am sure Wayfarer knew they would amend to "seek further relief in respect to Sham Action" they were building the foundation for Round 2. That's why they didn't compel Lively for any discovery, subpoena, didn't't sanctions for their ridiculous aggressive litigation. They knew.

Good find, R9!

Sounds like this isn't over. Not by a long shot.

[quote]"A judge on Monday dismissed Justin Baldoni‘s $400 million defamation claim against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, finding that her accusations of sexual harassment were legally protected and therefore immune from suit."

Let me get this straight - a man is legally not allowed to defend himself from sexual harassment allegations now????

God I hope Bryan Freeman takes this all the way to SCOTUS. How is this Constitutional ffs??

R10 Well on the other hand...

[quote]I heard on Dave Neal that Omar said it's good for Baldoni. It's not. Civil Extortion and Defamation are out completely. Those are the causes of action that could have gotten him the $400m. The other two causes of action that he is allowed to amend (breach of implied covenant and tortious interference) won't get him much, if any, damages. And that's if they're not dismissed as well. It's hard not to feel defeated and sad for Justin and the Wayfarer parties, because Blake's actions were utterly vile.

Strings were pulled this is crazy.

The judge was paid off by Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively.

100%.

The judge is Doug Limam’s brother.

"The Wayfarer Parties have alleged that Reynolds and [publicist Leslie] Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer Parties of engaging in a smear campaign. [bold] But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane or the Times would have seriously doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law."[/bold]

This is good. It means people should shut their fucking mouths before they libel someone and let the courts handle it. If they don't handle it, then you release and expose. The judge warned them both and that one lawyer mostly ignored it and just kept on, and on.

Was a stupid lawsuit anyway. Millionaire boohoos while LA burns down, and endures violent protests! Wah, we didn't get along! She didn't want to be around me!

R14, no. The law concerning defamation in this country is clear. If you are a public figure, it is almost always a waste of time and money to sue someone for libel or defamation. Yes, he could file an amended complaint but he would have to have a factual basis for any new allegations.

The is an enormous and devastating setback for all DLers who have devoutly supported Justin Baldoni over that woman since the beginning of their dispute.

But the whore's suit is still going forward?

[quote]R10 Sounds like this isn't over. Not by a long shot.

Is your name Chris Hargensen?

[quote] Is your name Chris Hargensen?

And this is how it's going to end for Fake Lively!

Baldoni has already won by destroying Blake Lively's reputation.

Exactly how much cash was in that mania envelope handed over to the judge yesterday by Lively's attorney when the two met on the golf course ?

"Lively and Penn Badgley appeared in a pro-Obama commercial, as part of MoveOn.org's Youth Vote program. The commercial, directed by Doug Liman, aired during Gossip Girl on the CW, MTV and Comedy Central"

Doug Liman is judge Lewis Liman's brother.

How can this not be a conflict of interest?

Baldoni's attorneys stuck themselves with their not remembering the protected nature of sex harassment cases. They tried to invoke false claims, which one can't do until the harassment case is settled in the defendant's favor.

They just need to sue more smartly.

R26 They didn’t.

They knew all of this. They always knew they were going to lose.

By filing the countersuit, Baldoni created a legal basis to speak publicly and share his side.

He launched a website and began sharing emails, messages, footage, etc., without it being dismissed as irrelevant or inadmissible — he could claim it was part of his legal defense. This helped frame him as someone fighting back, rather than silently waiting for trial.

He probably knew the lawsuit would be tossed — the judge even called parts of it “speculative and conclusory.” But by getting headlines, planting doubt, and reframing the timeline of events, he shifted public perception, undermined the idea that he was hiding or guilty, and made Blake’s team seem like they were suppressing info.

So the countersuit was likely a defensive PR play, not a genuine shot at legal victory. And in that sense, he may have “lost” legally but succeeded in influencing perception.

And to continue R27, the public believes this was a fix. The judge had ties and continues the narrative at how corrupt Hollywood is.

Justin wins.

Thanks, R27, that makes sense.

R29 Thanks!

It’s like if Blake had her dragons, Justin had wildfire.

I'm low key enjoying the tears of all right wing MRA trolls. Well, you still have Johnny Depp.

R25, his brother having worked with Lively once over a decade ago does not violate conflict of interest rules.

The trial goes forward on Lively's lawsuit R20. She filed and then Baldoni, et al. filed a counter lawsuit. The judge has thrown out most of Baldoni's counterclaims and, based on what I've read, basically told Baldoni he doesn't have a prayer. Nonetheless, Lively's lawsuit continues forward to the discovery phase, which will no doubt push the initial trial date further out, but they are now set for trial in the first half of next year.

I was watching an attorney talk about this development, and it's not quite the victory Blake's team is claiming it to be.

Essentially, they're saying Baldoni jumped the gun with his defamation lawsuit, because anyone who files charges for harassment is protected from retaliation pending trial. It's not really possible to accuse someone of defamation before a trial, where evidence is presented and a jury renders a verdict. However, should the case go to trial and Baldoni is exonerated, *then* he can re-file defamation charges.

And I hope he does.

You just have to understand one key element of the law: Statements made in court filings, including allegations, are generally considered to be immune from defamation claims. That's why the 400 million dollar countersuit got dismissed. The case still exists. Baldoni's defenses to the case still exist. But his own case against the plaintiff and NY Times dies.

Blake Lively is opening up about the "pain" she was caused by Justin Baldoni's countersuit, which she declares has been "defeated" with the judge's dismissal.

"Like so many others, I've felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us," the actress, 37, wrote on her Instagram Stories on Monday, June 9. "While the suit against me was defeated, so many don't have the resources to fight back."

Lively added that she is now "more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman's right to have a voice in protecting themselves, including their safety, their integrity, their dignity and their story."

"With love and gratitude for the many who stood by me, many of you I know. Many of you I don't. But I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you," she wrote.

As part of the post, Lively shared a list of organizations for relevant resources and information: California Employment Lawyers Association; California Women's Law Center; CHILD USA; Coalition Against Trafficking in Women; Equal Rights Advocates; Esperanza United; Her Justice; Herunivercity Inc.; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Organization for Women; National Organization for Women NYC; New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault; New York Cyber Abuse Task Force; New York State Anti-Trafficking Coalition; Sanctuary for Families; Urban Resource Institute; Women's Equal Justice; and Women's Justice NOW.

Among these organizations were groups and experts that recently filed amicus briefs in the ongoing case, sounding the alarm on what they called Baldoni's "attempt to dismantle a law designed to protect women who speak up," a spokesperson for Lively said in a previous statement.

[quote]R34 Essentially, they're saying Baldoni jumped the gun with his defamation lawsuit, because anyone who files charges for harassment is protected from retaliation pending trial. It's not really possible to accuse someone of defamation before a trial, where evidence is presented and a jury renders a verdict. However, should the case go to trial and Baldoni is exonerated, *then* he can re-file defamation charges.

Are you sure about that? All the lawyers I've seen seem to think they can't refile it ever and their only recourse is appeal.

Hmmm interesting piece of info on Judge Liman.

[quote]Well, Without a Crystal Ball found out some very inappropriate conflicts of interest that came out last year about judge Lyman and his dismissal of a Bank of America case which later found him being admonished because his wife owned stock in Bank of America and the dismissal was reversed. Judge Liman owns stock in T Mobile which owns Mint Mobile which is partly owned by Ryan Reynolds. I see another conflict of interest and a future admonishment and possibly another reversal.

Lawyers are starting to question his reasoning for dismissal with prejudice. They don't understand why he had to make it his business to kill the defamation claim for good.

I don't know what it takes to meet the standards for a conflict of interest, but I feel like with both his brother's past connection to Blake and his personally owning stock in Ryan's company, he should've recused himself.

OMG who gives a fuck about these petty millionaires set squabble drama. The most frivolous lawsuit of Hollywood. There are real, important issues and yet people know more about this shite than human rights.

R40 Because this is the exact distraction people need from the "real, important issues" that they have no power over, dumbass.

What a convenient loophole lmao. File a complaint outside the court system and you're protected from ever having to be held accountable by the court for good. Everyone in California should file a CRD complaint against their asshole bosses and leak it on Twitter.

California is such a fucking joke.

[quote] Justin Baldoni Sends A Strong Message To Blake Lively After Tossed $400M Lawsuit

Justin Baldoni may have lost the battle, but his war against Blake Lively and her sexual harassment allegations is far from over!

Baldoni's attorney, Bryan Freedman, addressed the dismissal of the $400 million defamation lawsuit in a statement released on Tuesday, June 10.

He claimed that Lively and her team were celebrating far too early because the war was not over, even if they achieved a small victory. Baldoni's attorney explained:

[italic]"Ms. Lively and her team's predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling. While the Court dismissed the defamation-related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations."[/italic]

The legal rep assured TMZ they were not disheartened by the judge's decision to toss the defamation lawsuit out of Court.

Instead, Baldoni and his lawyer saw the outcome as an opportunity to prove Lively dropped false accusations of sexual harassment and claims of a nonexistent smear campaign to ruin the actor's image.

Hours before Baldoni's legal rep declared their intention to keep fighting against Lively, The Blast shared that the actress was all smiles on Monday night. She made her first public appearance after the defamation lawsuit was tossed at the Chanel Tribeca Festival Artists Dinner in New York City.

Lively stunned on the red carpet like a woman with a massive weight off her shoulders, posing confidently for the cameras in a white crochet dress. She complemented the outfit with Louboutin heels and Chanel accessories, posing confidently for photographers while her hair flowed down her shoulders in graceful waves.

A source claimed the outing came after Lively was overcome with emotions following the judge's ruling in her favor. "Complete elation from Blake's world and a monkey off her back.

While Lively allegedly "cried with relief," her attorneys proudly celebrated Baldoni's lawsuit dismissal. They reacted to the ruling in a statement, describing the judge's decision as a "total victory" for the actress while slamming her defamation accusers for their "sham" allegations.

Thanks for doing your part to make things better, R42.

Defamation suit or not, I still think Justin has all the receipts and Blake just has rhetoric.

Even if you throw out all oF Baldoni's receipts and take all of Blake's claims exactly as they are, it still doesn't make Baldoni an abuser. It's crazy that there's even an argument over that which perfectly demonstrates why metoo has lost most of the relevance it once had.

Blake Lively is dangerous and needs to be put away.

Notice the people on Baldoni's side are the right-wingers who want to bash the #metoo movement like r46

Right-wingers are dangerous and need to be put away. They elected a rapist to be president

People who think "California is a joke" probably live in a run-down trailer in West Virginia

R48 And pushing people to the other camp just because you disagree on one thing is exactly how y'all lost the election and will keep losing to fascists.

R50, Why does every thread, no matter what the topic, have a comment about how more liberal people are causing people to become trump supporters?

R51 I don't know, ask your kind why everyone who disagrees with you on anything has to be a Trump supporter.

It ends with the judge!

[quote]Notice the people on Baldoni's side are the right-wingers who want to bash the #metoo movement

Not necessarily. I'm a flaming lefty and I think Blake's a lying liar who lies.

And if you really cared about the #MeToo movement, you'd be against women like Blake making false accusations. That makes it more difficult for women who really are abused.

I supported Amber Heard over Johnny Depp. And I support Justin Baldoni over Blake Lively.

Blake and Ryan bringing a sexual harrassment lawsuit over a workplace dispute because her hair products and alcohol line failed should have never happened. They are power crazed and destructive.

This situation is abuse of the #MeToo movement, a mockery of sexual harassment, and a mockery to women.

Calling out Blake only supports real victims.

A dismissal doesn’t mean it’s over. I just started reading the thread and his claims being dismissed doesn’t close the trial. He also can refile with new evidence.

His claims were dismissed because Lively filed in California and in California her lawsuit is protected and he can’t try silencing her there.

Also, the judge who dismissed Baldoni’s lawsuit is the brother of a Hollywood producer and director who is good friends with both Reynolds and Lively, and worked with Lively back on Gossip Girl.

No, Doug Liman did not work on Gossip Girl r58, you’re saying shit that isn’t true. He directed her and Penn Badgley in a political ad for Barack Obama in 2008.

R59 that would mean he still worked with her. Not r58 but you proved their point.

No it doesn’t, because r58 was insinuating corruption and claiming the judge’s brother worked with Lively for years on her most renowned project. Uttering platitudes like “Gobama! Rock the vote! No H8!” for 1 hour in front of the Doug Liman 17 years ago doesn’t implicate the judge for impropriety.

Thats an old pic of Ryan-very old.

R41 Your ilk is why Trump won. Rather consume yourself with this horseshit than vote, do community service, or so anything that isn't brain rot.