Blake Lively submits a request: Litigation with Baldoni takes a new turn

The legal argument between the “only once” Co-stars Blake Lively (37) and Justin Baldoni (41) has taken a new turn. , Lively has now applied for the defamation of Baldoni by referring to a California law that protects people who report sexual assault.

According to this, Lively’s lawyers argue in an application submitted to the Federal Court in New York on March 20 that Baldonis should be rejected complaints according to Assembly Bill. This amendment to the California Law from 2023 fulfills people who have reported harassment, assault or discrimination, legal protection and protects them from defamation lawsuits, unless they have acted with malicious intent.

If the court granted the application, Baldonis would be rejected and it could be obliged to cover Lively’s legal fees, writes the “Los Angeles Times”. In her application, Livelyy’s lawyers argue that Baldoni’s counter -complaint is “vengeful” and legally unfounded. It is “a PR instrument that serves to drive the dark campaign from Wayfarer to ‘bury’ and ‘destroy’ Ms. Lively because she has publicly expressed sexual harassment and retaliation”.

The application marks the latest turn in the bitter dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. On December 20, 2024, Lively had filed a lawsuit against Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer Studios, in which she only accused her co-star and the director of the film “only” sexual misconduct and a coordinated dirt campaign. LIVELY claimed that Baldoni had made inappropriate comments on the set and tried to discredit her in the media.

Baldoni rejected these accusations and reacted with a defamation for $ 250 million against Lively and the “New York Times”, which had published their claims. He also submitted a counterclaim in which he accused Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds (48) and her PR consultant of the defamation and accused them of conspiring to snatch his control over the film. He demands $ 400 million compensation.

According to US media, the competing complaints above all raise the question of which state law is applicable. Baldoni’s lawyers argue that California should be decisive because he and his production company are located there. In his counterclaim, he also asserted allegations that are recognized under California law, but not in New York.

Lively signaled me in New York that she saw this state as suitable for your case. In the new application, however, she now relies on California law. The decision of the court on Lively application could therefore have far -reaching legal effects beyond the feud. Should the judge decide in her favor, this could create a precedent for using the Assembly Bill 933 in future defamation processes.