Full Breakdown
Judge Denies Blake Lively’s Request for Additional Briefs After Settlement with Justin Baldoni
5/13/2026, 8:10:03 AM
Settlement and Subsequent Motion
A week after Blake Lively and director-actor Justin Baldoni announced a settlement that ended their 18-month “It Ends With Us” lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman refused Lively’s motion to file extra briefs on attorney-fees and damages. The judge said no further briefing was needed before ruling on whether Lively may recover fees tied to Baldoni’s dismissed $400 million countersuit.
Background of the Dispute
Lively sued Baldoni in December 2024, alleging sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and a retaliatory smear campaign during production of the 2024 film *It Ends With Us*. Baldoni denied the claims and filed a $400 million defamation countersuit that was dismissed in June 2025. In April 2025 a judge tossed 10 of Lively’s 13 claims, leaving three—breach of contract, retaliation, and a narrow fee claim—pending trial.
Timeline of Key Developments
- Dec 2024: Lively files harassment lawsuit.
- Jun 2025: Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit dismissed.
- Apr 2025: Judge Liman dismisses 10 of Lively’s claims.
- May 4 2026: Parties announce settlement; Baldoni’s countersuit withdrawn and appeal rights waived.
- May 12 2026: Judge Liman denies Lively’s request for additional briefing on fees and damages.
Parties and Legal Representation
- Blake Lively: Actress, represented by Michael Gottlieb.
- Justin Baldoni: Director-actor, represented by Bryan Freedman.
- Wayfarer Studios: Baldoni’s production company, also a party to the settlement.
- Judge Lewis J. Liman: Federal judge overseeing the consolidated action.
Legal Issues and Statistics
- $400 million: Amount of Baldoni’s dismissed countersuit.
- ? $300 million: Damages Lively sought for the narrowed claims.
- $60 million: Reported combined legal costs for both sides.
- 13 claims originally filed by Lively; 10 dismissed, 3 remained.
- California Civil Code § 47.1: Statute Lively invokes to recover fees for alleged retaliation.
Official Statements & Responses
Lively’s counsel called the settlement “a resounding victory,” emphasizing that the defendants “admitted Ms. Lively’s concerns deserved to be heard.” Baldoni’s attorney labeled the agreement “a huge victory” and suggested Lively settled out of fear of trial. Both sides issued a joint statement praising the film’s impact on domestic-violence awareness and expressing hope for closure.
Criticism & Opposition
Media commentator Megyn Kelly dismissed the settlement spin as “revisionist history,” while co-host Matt Murphy mocked the legal narrative, quoting Einstein: “If you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Attorney Mark Geragos argued that Judge Liman’s order “was unflinching in his criticism of her lawyers,” implying strategic malpractice concerns.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on whether California’s fee-protection law applies. Lively’s team argues the statute covers her case, while Baldoni’s lawyers contend the alleged harassment occurred in New Jersey, the primary filming location, and that applying California law would infringe on constitutional petition rights. No court ruling on the statute’s applicability has been issued.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This settlement is a resounding victory for Blake Lively,” — Lively’s attorneys (Us Magazine)
- “huge victory” — Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney (Page Six)
- “What a revisionist history,” she said.” — Megyn Kelly (Megyn Kelly Show)
What’s Next
The court will soon rule on Lively’s pending fee-and-damages request under California law. A denial of that claim would close the litigation; approval could trigger further appeals or related suits concerning the statute’s jurisdiction.
