A federal judge in Manhattan granted Blake Lively the recovery of attorney fees but declined to award additional damages in litigation connected to the 2024 film It Ends With Us, a ruling that reflects a limited but notable application of a 2023 California law aimed at protecting sexual harassment accusers from retaliatory defamation suits.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman issued the decision after Lively reached a settlement of her lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation involving Justin Baldoni, who directed and co-starred in the film. The settlement produced no money for Lively, but the judge concluded she was entitled to fees and costs under the California statute that permits fee recovery when plaintiffs file defamation claims intended to punish or silence those who report sexual misconduct.
The court papers do not disclose how much Lively sought or ultimately was awarded in fees, and the record states it is unclear what sum, if any, was recovered. Prior to the settlement, Judge Liman had dismissed Lively’s harassment claims and all claims directly against Baldoni, while allowing certain claims against Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer Studios, to proceed on a retaliation theory.
In his written opinion, Liman emphasized the statutory purpose of the California law, noting it is designed to discourage the filing of defamation lawsuits that aim to "wear down and silence critics." The judge explained that statements made without malice may be protected by privilege under the statute, and that the Wayfarer parties had not met their burden of overcoming that privilege with respect to Lively’s conduct.
Addressing the record on alleged malice, Liman identified a single piece of evidence he said was "arguably" pertinent: testimony from a former talent agent for Baldoni, who used the word "extortion" in an email characterizing Lively’s actions. The judge wrote: "Without more, the Wayfarer parties cannot carry their burden of defeating the ... privilege. Lively is entitled to fees and costs."
Although Lively prevailed on the limited fee claim, the court rejected requests for treble and punitive damages tied to what Lively characterized as Baldoni’s "retaliatory" defamation lawsuit. The judge reasoned that the federal rule governing the legal fee claim did not extend so broadly as to authorize those enhanced damages.
The procedural history of the litigation includes Baldoni’s earlier $400 million defamation suit, which accused Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and others of seeking to besmirch him and seize control of the film. That suit had been dismissed by Liman last June, who found no evidence that Lively defamed Baldoni and concluded that any statements she made to a California civil rights agency were protected by privilege.
Following Friday’s 47-page decision, the parties filed an agreement not to appeal the ruling, according to court submissions.
Counsel for Baldoni, Bryan Freedman, issued a statement underscoring the limited nature of the award and reiterating denials of the substantive accusations against his client. "Ms. Lively was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more," he said.
Lively’s attorneys, Michael Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, said in a joint statement that their client is "gratified that her lawsuit shows how [the California law] and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors."
The dispute arose in connection with It Ends With Us, in which Lively portrayed a flower shop owner who marries a neurosurgeon played by Baldoni. The film, whose themes include domestic violence, drew mixed reviews but went on to gross more than $351 million worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo.
Key points
- The court awarded Lively limited attorney fees and costs under a California statute meant to protect sexual harassment accusers from retaliatory defamation suits.
- Judge Liman denied requests for treble and punitive damages, finding the federal rule at issue did not authorize such relief.
- The litigation involved high-dollar claims and counterclaims, including a previously dismissed $400 million defamation suit filed by Justin Baldoni; both sides agreed not to appeal the judge’s 47-page ruling.
Risks and uncertainties
- It remains unclear how much Lively was awarded or sought in fees, creating uncertainty about the financial consequences for the parties and their insurers - a matter of interest to legal services and entertainment industry stakeholders.
- The judge found insufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged defamatory statements were made with malice, a determination that limits the scope of potential damages and affects how similar claims may be pursued in the entertainment sector.
- Because the court denied enhanced damages such as treble or punitive awards, parties seeking stronger remedies under similar statutes may face limitations tied to federal fee-rule interpretations, affecting litigation strategy in the media and film industries.