Breaking Down the Baldoni Lawsuit Dismissal From a Lawyer's Perspective

If you follow current events, particularly entertainment news, chances are you’ve seen headlines about disputes between actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni stemming from production and marketing of the film, “It Ends With Us”.  Lively initiated litigation by filing a lawsuit in New York on December 31, 2024, asserting claims against Baldoni for sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and intentional and emotional distress.  Baldoni (and other parties) filed a countersuit on January 16, 2025, asserting claims against Lively (and other parties) for civil extortion, defamation, breach of implied contract, and tortious interference with contract and prospective relations. 

The disputes have provided a rare behind the scenes glimpse of interactions and communications involved in making and promoting a Hollywood film, with the drama playing out not only in court but also in the public eye. On June 9, 2025, the Court issued a 132-page order dismissing the Baldoni countersuit (citation below). The Court found the allegations, even assuming they are true, did not establish legal claims.

The Court of Public Opinion Versus the Court of Law

Litigation is uncertain in terms of outcome and costly in terms of time, energy, and fees.  For celebrities, whose popularity and status may intertwine with image and public perception, “winning” the court of public opinion may be more important than success in a court of law.  There may be a push to control the narrative in a way that does not align with the facts or downplays the issues for legal determination.  As a result, the public may form opinions based on incomplete or biased information, particularly when the public relies on biased or low-information sources without independent research. 

No matter how thick the smokescreen, inflammatory filings that don't survive legal scrutiny and unforced legal errors can impact public opinion.  In this case, the Lively and Baldoni sides sought early dismissal of the claims against them.  On June 9, the Court entered an order dismissing the Baldoni countersuit in its entirety.  Both sides have offered their own spin, with the Lively side claiming total vindication and the Baldoni side downplaying the order and reaffirming the fight is far from over.  The fallout remains to be seen, and time will tell if Lively’s claims withstand legal scrutiny, but this was a huge victory for the Lively side.  Below is more detail from the order.

Civil Extortion

Under California law, civil extortion arises where a plaintiff gives a defendant money or property under threat and seeks to have it returned.  Fuhrman v. Cal. Satellite Sys., 231 Cal. Rptr. 113, 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). 

The Baldoni side alleged a civil extortion claim based on allegations Lively, assisted by Ryan Reynolds ("Reynolds") and Leslie Sloane ("Sloane"), hijacked the film from Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios LLC ("Wayfarer") and threatened to refuse to promote the film and attack Baldoni and Wayfarer in the press if the Baldoni side did not agree to her demands for control over and credit for the film.  In response, the Lively side argued none of the alleged acts were wrongful and that they did not obtain money or property from the Baldoni side as required for a civil extortion claim.    

The Court found Lively’s alleged actions to steal control of the film from the Baldoni side did not constitute civil extortion under California law.  Instead, the Court found the alleged threats were hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions, which is not illegal.  In addition, the Court found the Baldoni side only showed threats without any monetary damage as required for civil extortion.

The Court dismissed this claim and rejected the Baldoni side's request to amend as "futile".

Defamation

Under California law, defamation involves (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, and (4) unprivileged, and that (5) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.  Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185, 1209 (Cal. 2007). A statement of opinion cannot support a defamation claim, and truth is always a defense to defamation. Summit Bank v. Rogers, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 40, 59 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).

When a public figure such as a celebrity alleges defamation, there is a higher standard.  A public figure must show the defendant made a statement with actual malice (i.e. actual knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth).  In addition, certain statements are privileged and exempt from defamation as a matter of law, including statements made in court and other official proceedings (including allegations in a complaint).  Since 2023, California also recognizes a privilege for statements by a victim “regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination.”  This applies to a victim “that has, or at any time had, a reasonable basis to file a complaint of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination.”   

The Baldoni side alleged defamation against the Lively side based on statements Lively made in her complaint which were repeated by Reynolds and Sloane and used in an article by The New York Times.  The Court found these statements were privileged and could not support a claim for defamation.  At most, the allegations suggested Lively, or someone on her behalf, provided The New York Times with a copy of her complaint and related text messages before the complaint was filed.  The fact The New York Times may have received the complaint prior to its filing did not matter because in California a party does not have to wait until a document is filed before providing it to the press as long as the party intends in good faith to file the document.  Moreover, the fact Lively may have presented a deceptively favorable (or even untrue) version of events in her complaint did not impact the litigation privilege.  As for Reynolds and Sloane, the Court found the allegations showed Reynolds and Sloane repeated Lively’s version of events in her complaint and did not indicate any reason why they would have doubted Lively’s version of events.

The Baldoni side also based their defamation claim on additional statements by Reynolds and Sloane accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct.  The Court found these statements did not support a defamation claim because there was no allegation of actual malice (i.e. knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth).  The Court found allegations showed Reynolds and Sloane made the statements believing they were true.  The Court pointed to allegations that Reynolds reacted aggressively towards Baldoni on multiple occasions and sought to harm him based on facts Reynolds genuinely believed were true.  The Court also found allegations showed Sloane repeated what Lively alleged in her complaint, and available facts supported her statements.

The Court dismissed this claim and rejected the Baldoni’s side request to amend as "futile”. 

Breach of Implied Contract

In California, to state a claim for breach of implied contract, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of specific contractual obligations and (2) interference with plaintiff’s performance of the contract or failure to cooperate with the plaintiff. 

The Baldoni side alleged Lively breached an implied actor contract by making threats, seizing creative control, and depriving the Baldoni side of “the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film as contemplated by the contract.”

The Court found the allegations were conclusory.  In particular, the Baldoni side did not allege any terms of the alleged contract, the parties to the alleged contract, or when the contract was made.  As a result, they did not allege any contractual provision with which Lively allegedly interfered to support a claim for breach of implied contract.

The Court dismissed this claim but allowed the Baldoni side an opportunity to amend by June 23.  The Court allowed for amendment based on assertions the Baldoni side could allege details of Lively’s contract with Wayfarer, including a purported provision that she had to exercise her right to consult and approve on the film in a reasonable manner. The Court noted that, without seeing the contract, the Court could not say amendment would be futile.

Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations or Prospective Economic Advantage

The Baldoni side asserted 3 alternative claims for tortious interference.  First, they allege Lively and Reynolds intentionally interfered with a contract between the Baldoni side and WME (talent agency) by making threats to induce WME to “drop” Baldoni.  Second, they allege Lively and Reynolds intentionally interfered with a prospective economic relationship between the Baldoni side and WME.  Third, they allege Lively and Reynolds negligently interfered with the relationship between the Baldoni side and WME.

In California, a tortious interference claim requires (1) existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.  Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 470 P.3d 571, 575 (Cal. 2020).

Tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage requires (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.  Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937, 950 (Cal. 2003).  The plaintiff must also plead the defendant engaged in an act that is wrongful apart from the actual interference.  Id.

Negligent interference requires similar elements but intent is replaced by negligence, and the plaintiff must show the defendant owes plaintiff a duty of care.  Axia Fin., LLC v. Mason McDuffie Mortg. Co., 2023 WL 7280443, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2023).

The Court found the Baldoni side failed to allege facts to support any of their claims.  They failed to allege details of any contract between Baldoni and WME, did not allege Reynolds knowingly induced the breach of any contract, and did not allege the existence of any economic relationship which was disrupted by Reynolds.  They also failed to allege WME was influenced by Reynolds’ statements, aside from conclusory allegations.    

The Court dismissed these claims but allowed the Baldoni side an opportunity to amend by June 23 based on assertions the Baldoni side could cure the defects by pleading an oral or implied contract of which they claim Reynolds was aware.

What happens next?

The legal disputes are not over.  Baldoni has suffered a legal setback but vows to continue the fight.  Lively’s claims currently remain pending.   

The Lively side will likely move for attorneys’ fees and costs after succeeding on their motions to dismiss.  California law provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs by a prevailing party defending against a defamation claim based on a privileged statement.  It is a reminder there can be costly consequences for pursuing claims that a court determines lack legal justification.           

Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al, Civil Case No. 1:25-cv-00449-LJL (S.D. N.Y. June 9, 2025) (granting motion to dismiss). 

Melissa Ewing

The Ewing Firm, LLC

www.theewingfirm.com