In a significant development for the ongoing legal battle between actress Blake Lively and her former colleague Justin Baldoni, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York has dismissed a substantial portion of Lively’s sexual harassment claims. U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled on Baldoni’s request for summary judgment, clearing away 10 of the 13 allegations that Lively had put forth, including accusations of harassment, conspiracy, and defamation.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-32426--11a1f8036ad047ba815b510f74f5df3a.jpg)
The decision narrows the scope of Lively’s lawsuit, allowing only a limited number of claims to proceed. These include breach of contract and specific allegations related to retaliation. The judge’s ruling indicates that Lively’s claims, which depended on her being deemed an employee of Baldoni or the relevant production companies, could not be supported under existing legal frameworks. However, some of her retaliation-related claims were deemed sufficiently robust to advance to trial.
This lawsuit has its roots in Lively’s allegations against Baldoni, which arose during their collaboration on the film “It Ends With Us.” The actress, 38, filed the suit in December 2024, accusing Baldoni, 42, and multiple others—including producer Jamey Heath and Wayfarer Studios co-founder Steve Sarowitz—of orchestrating a retaliatory smear campaign that aimed to undermine her reputation. Lively is seeking damages exceeding £130 million.
In response to Lively’s allegations, Baldoni has categorically denied wrongdoing. He filed a counterclaim of his own, seeking £320 million in damages against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and others, alleging defamation and breach of contract. However, this counterclaim was dismissed by Judge Liman in June 2025.
The judge’s recent ruling followed an unsuccessful court-mandated settlement conference held earlier this year. Attempts to reach an amicable resolution have evidently failed, leaving the case on track for trial, which is scheduled to commence on 18 May.
Arguments presented in court revealed stark contrasts between the two sides. During a hearing in late January, Baldoni’s attorney, Jonathan Bach, dismissed Lively’s allegations as lacking substantiation, labelling them as “small potatoes”. Judge Liman, however, pushed back against this perspective, asserting that even seemingly minor actions can accumulate to form a significant pattern of misconduct.
Bach further contended that the tensions between Lively and Baldoni arose from creative disagreements inherent in filmmaking, rather than any unlawful behaviour. He emphasised the context of their project, which included provocative themes, and noted the presence of an intimacy coordinator on set to facilitate appropriate conduct.
On the other hand, Lively’s legal representative, Esra Hudson, argued that Baldoni’s behaviour crossed professional boundaries, alleging that he introduced unapproved sexualised content into the film that was not part of the original script. This included a birth scene and a dance sequence that Hudson claimed resulted in Baldoni “nuzzling” Lively inappropriately.
Hudson also highlighted the negative repercussions Lively faced after voicing her concerns about Baldoni’s conduct, pointing out that she had explicitly refused to pose for photographs with him—a decision she believed should be seen as protected conduct.
As the trial date approaches, the entertainment industry watches closely as this case unfolds. Both Lively and Baldoni have significant followings, and the proceedings may illuminate broader issues regarding workplace conduct and the treatment of women in film and television. With only a small fraction of her claims permitted to advance, the focus now shifts to the legal strategies of both parties as they prepare for the court battle ahead.