A judge has ordered Justin Baldoni to pay Blake Lively‘s legal fees, though she is not entitled to extra damages related to the dismissal of his $400 million defamation suit against his former It Ends With Us co-star.
The dispute over damages and fees emerged alongside news that Lively and Baldoni had settled their contentious legal battle in early May, just before the case was set to go to trial. While the primary suit was settled with no monetary compensation for either side, Lively’s lawyers preserved their motion to pursue damages and fees related to the dismissal of Baldoni’s suit. They did so under California’s Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, which was designed to protect accusers by imposing mandatory penalties against plaintiffs who filed unsuccessful defamation suits in response to misconduct complaints.
On Friday, the court ruled that California’s Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act “does not create an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the parties.”
“It instead establishes a narrow exception to the usual litigation process for a specific and limited kind of relief,” U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman continued in his ruling. “Compensatory and punitive damages do not fall within that exception.”
Judge Lewis denied Lively’s motion for triple damages and punitive damages, ruling that there was no evidence that Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer committed alleged defamatory assertions with malice.
Reps for Baldoni and Lively did not immediately return Rolling Stone‘s requests for comment.
Lively had originally accused Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, of fostering a toxic, sexually charged work environment that discriminated against women on the set of It Ends With Us. Baldoni rebuffed her accusations and filed a $400 million countersuit, but that was dismissed in June 2025. And while Lively’s original suit contained harassment allegations against Baldoni, they were among the many claims the judge tossed in April when the case seemed headed for trial.
In the lead-up to the dispute over these additional damages, both parties submitted letters on the matter in late May, while a hearing was held on June 1.
In their filing, Lively’s lawyers characterized her as the “prevailing defendant,” and said she was “entitled not just to attorneys’ fees and costs but also to compensatory damages tripled and punitive damages.” At the June 1 hearing, her lawyer compared the law to anti-SLAPP laws that are supposed to deter defamation suits that are actually designed to stifle speech (per Courthouse News Service).
Baldoni’s lawyers, meanwhile, rebuffed Lively’s claims, calling the motion “an end run around the jury trial that was eliminated by settlement in this case.”
