Justin Baldoni's $400 million (£295 million) lawsuit against his former co-star Blake Lively has been formally ended by a judge, who stated that Baldoni had failed to meet a deadline to continue his claim.
The pair, who starred in the 2024 film It Ends with Us, have been embroiled in a legal struggle since Lively sued Baldoni last December, alleging sexual harassment and a smear campaign against her.
In response, Baldoni filed a lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, and the New York Times, alleging civil extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy.
Baldoni's case was initially dismissed in June, with the judge offering him a chance to file an amended complaint. However, Judge Lewis Liman noted that he failed to do so.
In communications dated October 17, the judge warned all parties of a looming final judgment to conclude the case, to which only Lively responded, requesting that the judgment be declared while keeping her request for legal fees active. The judge agreed to her terms.
Lively's original lawsuit against Baldoni is still underway. After the dismissal of Baldoni's suit in June, Lively's lawyers termed it a total victory and a complete vindication. Baldoni's legal team countered that Lively's claim of victory was misleading and maintained their belief in the merits of their arguments.
While Baldoni's defamation claims were dismissed, the judge had indicated that Baldoni could continue with certain allegations. However, these amended claims were never filed, as noted in the recent ruling. Neither Baldoni nor his production company, Wayfarer, have issued any statements in response to the dismissal.
Judge Liman had previously highlighted that Baldoni's lawsuit revolved around allegations that Lively attempted to steal the film from him and his company by threatening to withdraw promotion, and that she had fostered a narrative that Baldoni had assaulted her.
The judge concluded that the claims did not adequately show wrongful extortion, and that Baldoni's defamation assertions were unsubstantiated, as they had not proved Lively's liability beyond privileged statements.
Additionally, the allegations against the New York Times were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of actual malice in their reporting, emphasizing that the Times acted based on available evidence without bias toward Lively.
