In the latest torsion of the legal battle with high issues on “It ends with us”, Blake Lively decided to reject the counter-communion of Justin Baldoni's defamation, citing a California law which protects people who signal allegations of sexual misconduct against pursuits of reprisals.
In a request filed Thursday before the New York Federal Court, Lively lawyers argue that Baldoni complaints should be rejected under Bill 933 of the Assembly, an amendment in 2023 to Californian law which grants legal protection to persons who make harassment, aggression or discrimination, by protecting them as are acting with in mind. If the court grants the request, Baldoni's complaints would be rejected and it may be required to cover the legal costs of Lively.
“The law prohibits the armament of defamation prosecution, like the latter, to retaliate against persons who have filed legal complaints or who have publicly talked about sexual harassment and reprisals,” said motion, specifically quoting the “California law recently promulgated” protecting the accusers.
The motion maintains that the counter-combination of Baldoni is vindictive and legally baseless, the appellant “an instrument of public relations designed to continue the Wayfarer parties” sinister campaign to “bury” and “destroy” Ms. Lively for having spoken of harassment and sexual reprisals “.
“This trial is a deep abuse of the legal process which has no place before the Federal Court,” said Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, lawyers in Lively, in a statement. “Californian law now expressly prohibits the victims of prosecution who make the decision to denounce sexual harassment or reprisals, whether in a trial or in the press.”
The request of Lively notes that AB 933 includes compulsory costs for transferring costs, which means that Baldoni and its donors could be required to cover the legal costs of Lively if the court is against the tide. “In other words, in a self-owner epic, the Wayfarer parties have created no more responsibility For themselves by their malicious efforts to continue Ms. Lively “in oblivion”, indicates the movement.
In a statement Thursday evening, Baldoni lawyer, Bryan Freedman, castigated the motion, calling it “one of the most heinous examples to abuse our legal system”.
“Strict rules are set up to protect innocent people and allow individuals to defend themselves rightly,” said Freedman. “The laws are not supposed to be twisted and organized by the privileged elites to adapt to their own personal program.
The deposit marks the last escalation of Amergs and public relations fight It started with Lively's allegations against Baldoni, his co-star and director of the romantic drama last year “IT Ends with US”. December 20, living filed a complaint With California Civil Rights Department, followed a few days later by a trial before the New York Federal Court, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and misconduct during the production of the film. In her costume, she alleged that he had forced her to put her pressure to perform more nudity than agreed, intimate improvised scenes and retaliated with a smear campaign after having expressed his concerns.
Baldoni denied allegations and responded with a Defamation costume of $ 250 million Against Lively and the New York Times, which had published its claims. Weeks later, he deposited a 400 million dollars berth Against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and their publicist, Leslie Sloane, accused them of conspiking to destroy her reputation and tore control of the film. His complaint alleys that Lively and his team orchestrated a campaign to discredit him, in particular by making false allegations of misconduct, broadcasting defamatory statements to the press and using their influence to put pressure on the studio to remove it from the film.
Competing proceedings have raised a key legal issue: the laws of the state should apply? Baldoni lawyers have argued that Californian law should govern, citing the prejudice of reputation and financial which he claims to have suffered in the state, where he and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, are based.
His combison plans also claims that affirmations such as the false invasion of privacy and civil extortion, which are recognized under Californian law, but not in New York. In a judicial file earlier this month, opposing the request of Sloane to reject complaints against it, Baldoni lawyers wrote: “Californian law should apply to remedy the wrongs suffered in California by the residents of California and their partners.”
By submitting his trial in the South New York district, Lively said she considered him to be the appropriate place for his case. In her latest motion, however, she invokes Californian law as a defense against Baldoni's defamation allegations.
AB 933, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2023, was promulgated to protect individuals against defamation prosecution on the basis of declarations on sexual assault, harassment or discrimination provided that they were made without malicious – which means that the president did not knowingly make a false declaration or acts with an imprudent desire for the truth.
The bill was supported by groups whose equality of rights defenders and the California Employment Lawyers Assn., Which argued that defamation proceedings had been used as a tool to silence the survivors. Supporters said the law was necessary to prevent powerful armaments from the legal system against those who report a fault.
The Lively team supervised the legal battle as part of this broader effort.
“The painful reality is that Ms. Lively is not the only one to be continued for defamation after talking about sexual harassment at work,” said Lively. “This is entirely why California recently promulgated AB 933 … Although Ms. Lively has suffered greatly by speaking and pursuing legal allegations, it is important that other people know that they have protections and that there is a specific law which expressly protects them against being reduced or financially ruined by a defamation action because they had the courage to express themselves.”
AB 933 not only protects certain declarations from defamation complaints, but also provides financial appeals to defendants in recovery proceedings. Successful defendants can recover lawyers and legal fees, and if a court concludes that the trial has been deposited in retaliation, they can request triple damages – up to three times the damage caused.
Although Baldoni has directly challenged AB 933’s request, his legal team has already affirmed in his counter-communion which knowingly made false declarations with the intention of hurting him. They argued that his alleged decision to share his allegations with the New York Times before filing an official complaint was part of a deliberate effort to harm Baldoni career rather than simply reporting a fault. Lively lawyers have thwarted that Californian law protects these communications unless they are made with reckless contempt for the truth.
The decision of the court on the request of Lively could have wider legal implications beyond the quarrel. If the judge reigns in his favor, this can establish a precedent on the way in which the AB 933 is applied in defamation battles – in particular in Hollywood, where legal fights concerning reputation damage are increasingly common in the post -metoo era.
