Blake Lively wins lawsuit as judge throws out Justin Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit, with U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruling there was no evidence supporting claims of defamation or extortion. The decision was handed down in the Southern District of New York, intensifying scrutiny due to Liman’s Hollywood connection, and stirring controversy and emotion among fans of both Lively and Baldoni.
Judge Lewis J. Liman’s Hollywood Family Ties and Their Role in the Case
Presiding over the lawsuit was Judge Lewis J. Liman, who holds his seat in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after being nominated and reappointed by President Donald Trump during his previous administration. Judge Liman’s family background includes significant legal and entertainment connections: his father, Arthur Liman, was a renowned attorney at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, while his brother, Doug Liman, is a well-known Hollywood director responsible for major films such as The Bourne Identity, Edge of Tomorrow, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
The family’s Hollywood connection became a focal point after internet users uncovered that Doug Liman directed a pro-Obama commercial in 2008 featuring Blake Lively and Penn Badgley. The brief collaboration was not a major project, but the coincidence fueled online debate over whether Judge Liman’s impartiality could be compromised. Some fans speculated that Lively, along with her husband Ryan Reynolds, might have influenced the outcome, given the distant connection. Claims from social media ranged from outright suspicion of insider influence to dismissals of those theories as overblown.
What’s your point? Some guy she worked with years ago went to his judge brother and asked him to do something that could cost him his seat? Isn’t it much more likely that the suit had no merit?— Chicken Little (@HereForPatriots) June 9, 2025
because his brother directed a show with thousands of actors 18 years ago, his years of being a lawyer and judge becomes invalid? yall are delusional and ridiculous— mo (@filled_popcorn) June 10, 2025
Despite the outcry online, there is no legal argument for a conflict of interest, and it appears unlikely that attorney Bryan Freedman or anyone else involved will formally challenge Judge Liman’s decision on these grounds. The judge’s family ties, while the subject of public suspicion, have not resulted in any legal findings of bias or impropriety.
Details Behind the Court’s Dismissal of Baldoni’s Defamation Claims
Justin Baldoni, known for his role in Jane the Virgin and as a producer at Wayfarer Studios, filed the $400 million countersuit after Lively’s initial lawsuit. Baldoni’s legal action alleged that Lively threatened not to promote his film and advanced a false narrative that damaged his professional reputation. However, Judge Liman found Baldoni’s accusations to be unfounded in law and fact.
The judge specifically pointed out that Baldoni’s allegations failed to rise to the level of wrongful extortion or illegality, instead characterizing them as permissible negotiation or contract bargaining. Regarding the statements at issue, the ruling was direct:
Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her lawsuit.— Judge Lewis J. Liman
Statements made by Lively in relation to the lawsuit were determined to be protected under legal privileges, making them immune from being the basis of defamation or extortion claims. Additionally, Liman ruled that any reference to articles in The New York Times does not sustain a new legal claim against Lively.
Despite these findings, Judge Liman did allow Baldoni the opportunity to amend and resubmit portions of his lawsuit that focus on other allegations, such as claims that Lively interfered with existing contracts connected to the film It Ends With Us. For now, the most serious charges have been dismissed, marking a significant win for Lively and her legal team.
Ongoing Public Debate and the Fallout from the Decision
The ruling has not brought the issue to a close in the court of public opinion. Across platforms like X, questions about the fairness of the proceedings remain rampant, with both supporters and detractors of the key figures voicing their distress and criticism. Accusations of behind-the-scenes influence and skepticism over the judge’s Hollywood ties illustrate the emotional and tense atmosphere surrounding the high-profile dispute.
The attention on Judge Liman’s background, as well as the continued social media debate highlighting figures like Ryan Reynolds and Penn Badgley, has only intensified the media and public focus on the lawsuit. Still, Judge Liman’s credentials—including his education at Yale Law School and the London School of Economics—have not been formally challenged in any legal proceeding, and none of the involved parties have indicated plans to contest the ruling based on the judge’s connections.
As the legal action progresses, with a possibility of amended claims from Justin Baldoni in the near future, the case highlights both the scrutiny faced by public figures in high-stakes litigation and the impact of perceived conflicts, even when no wrongdoing is established. For now, Blake Lively stands vindicated on the most consequential fronts, at least until new claims are potentially heard by the court.
