To counter Justin Baldoni’s legal action, Blake Lively is referring to a shift in California law which now forbids using defamation claims as weapons, particularly those involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
2023 saw California legislators broaden the scope of libel immunity to encompass statements about public revelations of sexual misconduct. This change makes it more difficult for those falsely accused to counterattack through lawsuits.
In New York federal court, Baldoni filed a lawsuit against Lively regarding defamation claims, yet he argued these should be judged under California state law. On Thursday, Lively’s lawyers consented to this and asked for the case to be dismissed. They cited an amendment in California law that safeguards individuals reporting sexual assault allegations from retaliatory legal action as their reason. The lawyers also requested a court ruling that would compel Baldoni to pay for Lively’s legal expenses and triple the damages incurred.
In their statement, Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, legal representatives of Lively, labeled Baldoni’s lawsuit as an “egregious misuse of the legal system that is inappropriate for federal court.” Furthermore, they mentioned that California law explicitly bars suing individuals who choose to share experiences related to sexual harassment or retaliation, whether it be through a court case or media outlets.
The submission marks another step in the ongoing legal dispute between Lively and Baldoni, who claim they were defamed when Lively accused them, specifically Baldoni and Wayfarer’s CEO Jamey Heath, of sexual misconduct towards her. They further assert that after she reported this misconduct, a retaliatory smear campaign was orchestrated to tarnish her image and reputation.
In her motion to dismiss filed on Thursday, Lively asks the court to apply California law to the defamation allegations in the lawsuit. She highlights that she was employed by Wayfarer, a company headquartered in California, and that both she and the company had agreed that any disputes arising from the filming of “It Ends With Us” would be subject to California state law.
The document mentions that the Wayfarer Parties justify their arguments using statements made by Ms. Lively in a complaint submitted to a California agency, with the aim of addressing violations of California law by an employer. It’s crucial for California to not only enforce its own laws among employers but also safeguard Ms. Lively’s right to voice concerns about sexual harassment and retaliation, and seek appropriate remedies.
Under Assembly Bill 933, a modification to California’s current legislation, there’s a clause that mandates those discovered to have initiated frivolous lawsuits as retaliation, will be compelled to cover the legal costs incurred, in addition to being liable for triple and punitive damages if they inflict harm on their accusers.
Vigorously, Lively presents procedural counterpoints to refute the accusations of defamation, such as the argument that Baldoni filed his lawsuit beyond the one-year limit for libel suits. She maintains that she initially published her allegedly slanderous statements in a 17-point list of demands for resuming filming, which was in November 2023, well over a year before the lawsuit was filed against her.
Another point to consider: whether Baldoni has adequately demonstrated ‘actual malice,’ which involves proving the accusations were made knowingly false or with a disregard for their truth. Lively claims she strongly believes that the director of It Ends With Us engaged in sexual harassment, using a text message exchange between Baldoni and his publicist Melissa Nathan as evidence, stating that she genuinely feels she is right and that all of this is unfair.
The argument follows a similar line as Ryan Reynolds’ attempt to discard defamation allegations made against him in Baldoni’s court case.
In response to accusations of extortion, Lively counters that the claim is “too complex and twisted to hold up.” She explains that these allegations stem from the same categories of protected speech that do not support defamation – specifically, her supposed threats to expose sexual harassment claims if the Wayfarer Parties did not grant her control over the movie’s creative aspects.
A representative from Lively commented that the actress “isn’t the only one facing a defamation lawsuit following her public disclosure of workplace sexual harassment.” The statement continued, “Ms. Lively has endured significant hardships by voicing her concerns and pursuing legal action, but it is crucial for others to understand their safeguards. There exists a particular law designed to shield individuals from being silenced or financially devastated by a defamation lawsuit, simply because they had the bravery to speak out.
Baldoni didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Read More
- Cookie Run Kingdom Town Square Vault password
- Maiden Academy tier list
- Cookie Run Kingdom: Shadow Milk Cookie Toppings and Beascuits guide
- Wizardry Variants Daphne tier list and a reroll guide
- Tap Force tier list of all characters that you can pick
- Chhaava OTT release: Where is Vicky Kaushal and Rashmika Mandanna’s film expected to stream after theatrical run? Find out
- BONE PREDICTION. BONE cryptocurrency
- How To Get Raw Meat In Monster Hunter Wilds
- Shakira Hospitalized, Cancels Peru Show Due to “Abdominal Issue”
- MSNBC’s Rebecca Kutler Takes Over as President
2025-03-20 21:55