Blake Lively moves to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s countersuit, citing California law on misconduct claims
- Share via
In the latest twist in the high-stakes legal battle over “It Ends With Us,” Blake Lively has moved to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s defamation countersuit, citing a California law that protects individuals who report allegations of sexual misconduct from retaliatory lawsuits.
In a motion filed Thursday in federal court in New York, Lively’s attorneys argue that Baldoni’s claims should be dismissed under Assembly Bill 933, a 2023 amendment to California law that grants legal protection to individuals who make statements about harassment, assault or discrimination, shielding them from defamation claims unless they acted with actual malice. If the court grants the motion, Baldoni’s claims would be dismissed, and he could be required to cover Lively’s legal fees.
“The law prohibits weaponizing defamation lawsuits, like this one, to retaliate against individuals who have filed legal claims or have publicly spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation,” the motion argues, specifically citing the “recently enacted California law” protecting accusers.
The motion argues that Baldoni’s countersuit is vindictive and legally baseless, calling it “a public relations instrument designed to further the Wayfarer Parties’ sinister campaign to ‘bury’ and ‘destroy’ Ms. Lively for speaking out about sexual harassment and retaliation.”
The actor-director built a career blending his Bahai values and storytelling. Now allegations involving Blake Lively and ‘It Ends With Us’ threaten his image.
“This lawsuit is a profound abuse of the legal process that has no place in federal court,” Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, attorneys for Lively, said in a statement. “California law now expressly prohibits suing victims who make the decision to speak out against sexual harassment or retaliation, whether in a lawsuit or in the press.”
Lively’s motion notes that AB 933 includes mandatory fee-shifting provisions, meaning Baldoni and his backers could be required to cover Lively’s legal costs if the court rules against them. “In other words, in an epic self-own, the Wayfarer Parties have created more liability for themselves by their malicious efforts to sue Ms. Lively ‘into oblivion,’ ” the motion reads.
In a statement late Thursday, Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, blasted the motion, calling it “one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our legal system.”
“Stringent rules are put into place to protect the innocent and allow individuals to rightfully defend themselves,” Freedman said. “Laws are not meant to be twisted and curated by privileged elites to fit their own personal agenda. ... We will continue to hold Ms. Lively accountable for her actions of pure malice which include falsely accusing my clients of harassment and retaliation. Her fantastical claims will be swiftly debunked as discovery moves forward, easily disproved with actual, evidentiary proof.”
The filing marks the latest escalation in the bitter legal and public relations fight that began with Lively’s allegations against Baldoni, her co-star and director on last year’s romantic drama “It Ends With Us.” On Dec. 20, Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, followed days later by a lawsuit in New York federal court, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and misconduct during the film’s production. In her suit, she alleged that he pressured her to perform more nudity than agreed upon, improvised intimate scenes and retaliated with a smear campaign after she raised concerns.
The Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni legal drama highlights conflicting claims about the tactics used by powerful celebrity attorneys on behalf of their clients.
Baldoni denied the allegations and responded with a $250-million defamation suit against Lively and the New York Times, which had published her claims. Weeks later, he filed a $400-million countersuit against Lively, husband Ryan Reynolds and their publicist, Leslie Sloane, accusing them of conspiring to destroy his reputation and wrest control of the film from him. His countersuit alleges that Lively and her team orchestrated a campaign to discredit him, including making false misconduct allegations, spreading defamatory statements to the press and using their influence to pressure the studio to remove him from the movie.
The competing lawsuits have raised a key legal question: Which state’s laws should apply? Baldoni’s attorneys have argued that California law should govern, citing the reputational and financial harm he claims to have suffered in the state, where he and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, are based.
His countersuit also asserts claims such as false light invasion of privacy and civil extortion, which are recognized under California law but not in New York. In a court filing earlier this month opposing Sloane’s motion to dismiss the claims against her, Baldoni’s attorneys wrote, “California law should apply to remedy the wrongs suffered in California by California residents and their associates.”
By filing her lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, Lively indicated that she viewed it as the proper venue for her case. In her latest motion, however, she invokes California law as a defense against Baldoni’s defamation allegations.
AB 933, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023, was enacted to protect individuals from defamation lawsuits based on statements about sexual assault, harassment or discrimination provided they were made without malice — meaning the speaker did not knowingly make a false statement or act with reckless disregard for the truth.
The bill was backed by groups including Equal Rights Advocates and the California Employment Lawyers Assn., which argued that defamation lawsuits had been used as a tool to silence survivors. Supporters said the law was necessary to prevent powerful individuals from weaponizing the legal system against those who report misconduct.
Lively’s team framed the legal battle as part of that broader effort.
“The painful reality is that Ms. Lively is not alone in being sued for defamation after speaking up about being sexually harassed at work,” a spokesperson for Lively said. “That is entirely why California recently enacted AB 933… While Ms. Lively has suffered greatly by speaking up and pursuing legal claims, it is important for other people to know that they have protections, and that there is a specific law that expressly protects them from being silenced or financially ruined by a defamation lawsuit because they had the courage to speak up.”
AB 933 not only shields certain statements from defamation claims but also provides financial remedies for defendants in retaliatory lawsuits. Successful defendants may recover attorney fees and legal costs, and if a court finds the lawsuit was filed in retaliation, they may seek treble damages — up to three times the harm caused.
Although Baldoni has yet to directly challenge AB 933’s application, his legal team has already asserted in his countersuit that Lively knowingly made false statements with the intent to harm him. They have argued that her alleged decision to share her claims with The New York Times before filing a formal complaint was part of a deliberate effort to damage Baldoni’s career rather than simply report misconduct. Lively’s attorneys counter that California law protects such communications unless they were made with reckless disregard for the truth.
The court’s ruling on Lively’s motion could have broader legal implications beyond the feud. If the judge rules in her favor, it may set a precedent for how AB 933 is applied in defamation battles — particularly in Hollywood, where legal fights over reputational damage have grown increasingly common in the post-#MeToo era.
Updates
7:36 p.m. March 20, 2025: This article was updated to include comment from Justin Baldoni’s attorney.
