Latest news with #anti-SLAPP
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Judge tosses Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively and New York Times
In a sweeping decision capping one of Hollywood's most closely watched legal battles, a federal judge on Monday dismissed two high-stakes lawsuits brought by "It Ends With Us" director Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, against actress Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, The New York Times, and others — ruling that the wide-ranging claims, including defamation, extortion and breach of contract, failed to meet legal standards. The case stemmed from a December 2024 New York Times article detailing sexual harassment allegations that Lively made against Baldoni during production of the romantic drama, based on a formal complaint she filed with California's Civil Rights Department. Baldoni and Wayfarer alleged that the article — and Lively's broader conduct — were part of a retaliatory campaign to seize creative control of the film, exclude Baldoni from publicity efforts and harm his reputation. U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman rejected those theories in full, granting the motion to dismiss both the $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds and others and the $250 million defamation claim against the Times. 'The motions to dismiss are granted,' Liman wrote in a 132-page opinion, which also denied — for now — requests from Lively's team for attorneys' fees and sanctions under anti-SLAPP statutes in New York and California. In a statement, Lively's attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb called the ruling a decisive legal victory. 'Today's opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit,' they said. 'As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it. We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties who perpetrated this abusive litigation.' Baldoni and Wayfarer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In her complaint, Lively accused Baldoni of inappropriate physical and verbal conduct, including improvised scenes of intimacy and unsolicited comments about her appearance — allegations Baldoni strongly denied. The Times article recounted those claims, which Baldoni and Wayfarer argued were false and defamatory. In his decision, Liman found the article was protected reporting on a matter of public concern and dismissed all claims against the Times. He also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a series of pre-publication emails with the paper formed a binding agreement. 'The Wayfarer Parties plead in their complaint that 'the express written words' of the emails 'created an implied-in-fact contract,'' Liman wrote. But he concluded that no such contract existed, adding that the communications did not 'plausibly support an inference that the parties reached a meeting of the minds.' The court also rejected the notion that Lively's conduct — including her hesitation to promote the film and her insistence on workplace protections — amounted to extortion or breach. 'Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at [the] workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion,' Liman wrote. 'If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee's wrongful threats.' He added: 'There also is no allegation that Lively had a contractual obligation to promote the film; if not, there is no basis to assume that the value that she conveyed in terms of her willingness to promote represented anything other than a fair trade for the Wayfarer Parties' willingness to use her cut.' Liman further criticized the sprawl of the plaintiffs' filings — including a 224-page complaint and a 168-page 'timeline' exhibit — calling the latter improper and legally meaningless. While he declined to strike the exhibit from the docket, he said he would simply disregard it. Liman granted the plaintiffs leave to amend only a narrow part of their case — allegations that Lively interfered with Apple and Sony's promotional arrangements — but dismissed all other claims with prejudice, signaling that he found the broader legal theories fundamentally flawed. While an appeal remains possible, the ruling delivers a decisive and public defeat for Baldoni and Wayfarer in their attempt to reframe the fallout over the film. Lively's push to dismiss the lawsuit had drawn support from several advocacy groups, who argue that the case threatens hard-won legal protections for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct. Organizations including Equal Rights Advocates, Child USA and Sanctuary for Families filed amicus briefs in support of Lively's motion, warning that allowing such claims to proceed could deter survivors from coming forward and chill public discourse on workplace abuse. Sign up for Indie Focus, a weekly newsletter about movies and what's going on in the wild world of cinema. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
Judge tosses Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively and New York Times
In a sweeping decision capping one of Hollywood's most closely watched legal battles, a federal judge on Monday dismissed two high-stakes lawsuits brought by 'It Ends With Us' director Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, against actress Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, The New York Times, and others — ruling that the wide-ranging claims, including defamation, extortion and breach of contract, failed to meet legal standards. The case stemmed from a December 2024 New York Times article detailing sexual harassment allegations that Lively made against Baldoni during production of the romantic drama, based on a formal complaint she filed with California's Civil Rights Department. Baldoni and Wayfarer alleged that the article — and Lively's broader conduct — were part of a retaliatory campaign to seize creative control of the film, exclude Baldoni from publicity efforts and harm his reputation. U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman rejected those theories in full, granting the motion to dismiss both the $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds and others and the $250 million defamation claim against the Times. 'The motions to dismiss are granted,' Liman wrote in a 132-page opinion, which also denied — for now — requests from Lively's team for attorneys' fees and sanctions under anti-SLAPP statutes in New York and California. In a statement, Lively's attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb called the ruling a decisive legal victory. 'Today's opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit,' they said. 'As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it. We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties who perpetrated this abusive litigation.' Baldoni and Wayfarer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In her complaint, Lively accused Baldoni of inappropriate physical and verbal conduct, including improvised scenes of intimacy and unsolicited comments about her appearance — allegations Baldoni strongly denied. The Times article recounted those claims, which Baldoni and Wayfarer argued were false and defamatory. In his decision, Liman found the article was protected reporting on a matter of public concern and dismissed all claims against the Times. He also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a series of pre-publication emails with the paper formed a binding agreement. 'The Wayfarer Parties plead in their complaint that 'the express written words' of the emails 'created an implied-in-fact contract,'' Liman wrote. But he concluded that no such contract existed, adding that the communications did not 'plausibly support an inference that the parties reached a meeting of the minds.' The court also rejected the notion that Lively's conduct — including her hesitation to promote the film and her insistence on workplace protections — amounted to extortion or breach. 'Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at [the] workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion,' Liman wrote. 'If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee's wrongful threats.' He added: 'There also is no allegation that Lively had a contractual obligation to promote the film; if not, there is no basis to assume that the value that she conveyed in terms of her willingness to promote represented anything other than a fair trade for the Wayfarer Parties' willingness to use her cut.' Liman further criticized the sprawl of the plaintiffs' filings — including a 224-page complaint and a 168-page 'timeline' exhibit — calling the latter improper and legally meaningless. While he declined to strike the exhibit from the docket, he said he would simply disregard it. Liman granted the plaintiffs leave to amend only a narrow part of their case — allegations that Lively interfered with Apple and Sony's promotional arrangements — but dismissed all other claims with prejudice, signaling that he found the broader legal theories fundamentally flawed. While an appeal remains possible, the ruling delivers a decisive and public defeat for Baldoni and Wayfarer in their attempt to reframe the fallout over the film. Lively's push to dismiss the lawsuit had drawn support from several advocacy groups, who argue that the case threatens hard-won legal protections for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct. Organizations including Equal Rights Advocates, Child USA and Sanctuary for Families filed amicus briefs in support of Lively's motion, warning that allowing such claims to proceed could deter survivors from coming forward and chill public discourse on workplace abuse.
New York Post
31-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Navy veteran's $500M defamation lawsuit against Associated Press advances with first hearing
Zachary Young's high-stakes defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press continues to inch along in Bay County, Florida, as the U.S. Navy veteran seeks to clear his name. Young successfully sued CNN for defamation earlier this year after saying the network smeared him by implying he illegally profited from helping people flee Afghanistan on the 'black market' during the Biden administration's disastrous 2021 military withdrawal. Advertisement When covering the trial in January, Associated Press media reporter David Bauder wrote that 'Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan.' Young's legal team has said that the Associated Press article 'went even further than CNN's falsehoods,' and the veteran is seeking nearly $500 million in a defamation suit against the AP. On Monday, Young's legal team responded to the AP's motion to dismiss the suit. The AP had insisted Young's complaint is 'without merit' and unjustly challenges the outlet's free speech rights, but the Navy veteran's legal team believes the motion failed to address 'core issues.' Advertisement 'It does not dispute that the term 'human smuggling' implies criminal conduct, nor does it offer any valid explanation for its use of that term, even though a court previously ruled that Mr. Young committed no crime. AP's own Stylebook defines 'smuggling' as illegal,' Young's attorney, Daniel Lustig, wrote. 3 Former U.S. Navy Veteran Zachary Young continued his high-stakes defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press to clear his name of the report that he smuggled people out of Afghanistan. FOX News 'Dozens of AP articles reflect that usage. Just days before this filing, AP published a story about a man sentenced to 25 years in prison for 'smuggling people,' reinforcing that understanding,' Lustig continued. 'Even after receiving notice, AP refused to retract or revise the statement, not even to use a more accurate term such as 'evacuate' or 'rescue.'' Advertisement 3 Young was able to successfully sue CNN and is seeking nearly $500 million in a defamation suit against the AP. AP Young's attorney believes the most 'notable' part of the AP's motion to dismiss is that it never denied that 'smuggling' refers to a criminal act. 'Instead, it argues that the statement, in context, was not defamatory. That is not a defense, it is a concession. Under Florida law, if a statement is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, it is a question for the jury, not one to be resolved on a motion to dismiss. AP's attempt to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute to shield such a statement is both legally unsupported and fundamentally flawed,' Lustig wrote. Young's legal team has also filed a motion to amend the complaint to include punitive damages. Advertisement 3 Young's attorney Daniel Lustig said, the most 'notable' part of the AP's motion to dismiss is that it never denied that 'smuggling' refers to a criminal act. FOX News The 242-page filing suggested this case 'exemplifies the very scenario in which punitive damages are warranted to punish and deter such consciously indifferent conduct by a media organization.' On Tuesday, each side appeared for the first hearing in front of 14th Judicial Circuit Court Judge William S. Henry, who also presided over the CNN trial. The Case Management Conference, conducted over Zoom, was largely procedural and offered a chance for each party to explain why respective motions should be heard. Judge Henry scheduled the next hearing for July 3. He is expected to rule on both the AP's motion to dismiss and Young's amended complaint. The AP has referred to the lawsuit as 'frivolous' in past statements to the press.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Smokey Robinson Responds to Bombshell Sexual Assault Lawsuit With His Own Bombshell Claims
Legendary singer Smokey Robinson isn't taking those surprising sexual assault lawsuit lightly. In fact, his latest move proves he just may be gearing up for a big fight and we've got all the details. As we previously told you, four women have accused the Motown legend of sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, gender violence and creating a hostile work environment. His wife, Frances, has also been named in the suit. The women in particular are all allegedly former housekeepers of Robinson who claim that his wife had 'full knowledge of his prior acts of sexual misconduct' but 'failed to take the appropriate corrective action' to prevent 'deviant misconduct' from Robinson. They're seeking $5o million in damages. In the immediate aftermath, Robinson's attorney spoke out on behalf of him, describing the suit as an 'ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon' and the accusations as 'vile' and 'false.' Now, Robinson is taking further action to clear his name by filing a $500 million defamation countersuit against his accusers. Per court documents obtained by PEOPLE on Wednesday, the 'Cruisin'' singer is countersuing over allegations of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, financial elder abuse and more. The documents claim that the women lobbed 'gratuitous and slanderous allegations' against him, specifically citing a May 6 press conference in which 'The Tears of a Clown' singer was allegedly referred to as a 'serial and sick rapist.' 'The statements were false, and Plaintiffs knew them to be false,' the countersuit read. 'Nevertheless, they made the statements, and undoubtedly many people believe the statements to be true.' It later added: 'The Robinsons did not abuse, harm, or take advantage of Plaintiffs; they treated Plaintiffs with the utmost kindness and generosity. Unfortunately, the depths of the Plaintiffs' avarice and greed knows no bounds.' The countersuit also went on to say that Robinson's wife Frances was particularly distraught and felt betrayed by the accusations and their allegations of financial elder abuse stem from the fact that the four women's claims have 'caused the Robinsons, who are senior citizens, loss of income and assets set aside for retirement or for personal or family care and maintenance.' Additionally, Robinson alleges that this suit only came about after he and his wife rejected the women's demands of $100 million. Lawyers representing the unidentified women have since responded to Robinson's countersuit in statement, calling it 'a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward.' They also said that their clients remain dedicated to receiving justice in this case and will file an anti-SLAPP motion in an attempt to get rid of the 'Ooo Baby, Baby' singer's suit altogether. 'This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that power is not used to harm or suppress others,' the four women's response read in part. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Disciplinary commission rejects Indiana AG Todd Rokita's call to dismiss latest ethics complaint
Attorney General Todd Rokita speaks to the media on Friday, March 21, 2025. (Niki Kelly/Indiana Capital Chronicle) The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission issued a firm rebuttal this week to Attorney General Todd Rokita's attempt to dismiss a pending ethics complaint accusing him of misleading the court. In the 44-page brief filed Tuesday, Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, called Rokita's motion 'procedurally improper' and 'meritless.' She referenced the Republican attorney general's filing from February, in which he argued that the pending disciplinary case violates his First Amendment rights and Indiana's anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect political speech from frivolous legal action. Meiring repeatedly rejected Rokita's claims that three new charges filed against the Republican attorney general were politically motivated or an unconstitutional attack on free speech. She urged the state's high court to move forward with the case. 'This matter is not about politics. It is not about (Rokita's) viewpoint on any political, social, or cultural issue, nor is it about any executive decision or action by (Rokita) in his statutory office of Indiana Attorney General,' Meiring wrote. 'Instead, this matter pertains to the integrity of the judicial system and the attorney disciplinary process.' At the heart of the dispute is a press release Rokita issued just hours after the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded him in November 2023 for earlier misconduct. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to violating professional conduct rules in exchange for a public reprimand. Although he agreed not to contest the charges, the commission found that Rokita recanted almost immediately, suggesting in a public press release that he had done nothing wrong. The disciplinary commission held that 'this retraction of acceptance of responsibility demonstrates that the respondent was not candid with the court when he attested that he admitted he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules.' One member of the nine-person commission, Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter, abstained from the proceedings. Story continues below. Commission's Brief in Opposition Rokita did not contradict the earlier disciplinary agreement — or the sworn affidavit — in his motion to dismiss. Rather, he maintained the disciplinary commission's latest charges against him violated Indiana law, specifically the 'constitutional separation of powers principles.' The attorney general also said he 'should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents without the constant threat of an unelected commission parsing his every word, ready to pounce with a disciplinary action when they perceive any imagined inconsistency.' 'Given the serious constitutional, statutory and factual problems with its case,' Rokita continued, the 'right thing' for the commission to do is 'withdraw its complaint.' Few actions could be deemed more in need of the Court's exercise of its constitutional responsibility than an allegation that a lawyer has lacked candor and been dishonest with the State's highest court. – Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission The commission disagreed. 'The Commission has no dispute with Respondent's right to issue a press release or to discuss the Conditional Agreement and the resolution of his disciplinary case. The fallacy in Respondent's argument is that he misidentifies the speech involved in this disciplinary matter,' Meiring wrote. 'The core issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent was candid with this Court in making sworn statements recited and relied upon in the 2023 Opinion. Simply put, Respondent's statements to the Court in the 2023 disciplinary proceeding, under oath, are the problematic speech.' As to Rokita's free speech claims, Meiring further argued that 'the First Amendment does not protect attorney speech that lies or misleads,' and cited multiple state and federal precedents that permit disciplinary sanctions for dishonest conduct by attorneys. Meiring asserted, too, that Rokita failed to file a required answer to the charges and instead tried to 'improperly' use a motion to bypass a formal hearing. Rokita additionally accused the commission of retaliating against him for proposing reforms to Indiana's attorney discipline rules, which he submitted to the state supreme court in November and released to the public in January. The changes sought to limit the disciplinary commission's power and protect attorneys from politically driven complaints. CONTACT US Rokita argued that the commission was aware of the proposal well before it was made public. He said the new disciplinary complaint filed against him at the end of January was a direct response. Meiring disputed those 'groundless' claims at length in this week's brief. She called Rokita's theory baseless, noting that the commission was already bound by a Feb. 4 deadline to conclude its investigation, 'and, if appropriate, file charges.' '(Rokita)'s decision on when to publish his Rules Proposal had no bearing on the Commission's filing decision,' Meiring wrote. 'Respondent's decision to publicly release his Rules Proposal on or about January 7, 2025, when the Proposal had been delivered to the Justices two months earlier, was his own timing choice,' she continued. 'Respondent cannot create suspicion of retaliation simply by publicizing his Rules Proposal closer to the Commission's deadline for filing the instant proceeding. Just as a litigant cannot prompt disqualification of a judge via the litigant's own action of filing an unfounded complaint or lawsuit, Respondent should not be able to prompt dismissal based on alleged 'suspicious timing' brought about by his own actions.' Central to the disciplinary commission's complaint is Rokita's sworn conditional agreement regarding his discipline, and a subsequent press release issued by the attorney general. In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. Bernard, an OB-GYN, oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022. That November, a split-decision and public reprimand from state Supreme Court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers: They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings. They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Bernard. Rokita and the commission agreed to the discipline in the conditional agreement. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita seeks dismissal of latest disciplinary commission charges The parties disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others. Rokita's punishment included a public reprimand and $250 in court costs. But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita shared a lengthy and unrepentant statement, defending his 'true' remarks in which he attacked the news media, medical field and 'cancel culture.' The disciplinary commission pointed to those remarks — as well as earlier drafts of the statement obtained by subpoena, and a recent quote provided to the Indiana Lawyer — as evidence of Rokita's 'lack of candor and dishonesty to the Court' after he agreed to accept responsibility for misconduct. A decision on the dismissal motion and the disciplinary commission's new complaint is up to the Indiana Supreme Court. If the charges aren't dismissed — or if the disciplinary commission and Rokita can't reach a settlement agreement — the state's high court justices will appoint a hearing officer to hold a public hearing on the case and hear evidence. It would be up to the hearing officer to then issue findings and recommendations to the court, which has final say over the outcome of the case. Sanctions depend on the seriousness of the case. Possible sanctions include: a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed, however. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
