On Friday, Judge Lewis Liman ordered Wayfarer Studios to pay Blake Lively’s attorneys’ fees for defending against Justin Baldoni’s dismissed defamation suit, finding Lively entitled to recover costs under a 2023 California law meant to protect sexual‑abuse survivors from retaliatory lawsuits.
Liman granted Lively’s fee motion under Civil Code Section 47.1 but denied her request for triple and punitive damages, concluding those remedies are not available under federal law. Lively’s lawyers Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb hailed the ruling. "Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1," Hudson said in a statement, adding that "Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1."
The decision closes the last unresolved issue after the co‑stars settled nearly all disputes in May, two weeks before the matter was set to go to trial in federal court in New York. Baldoni’s original defamation suit was dismissed a year ago after the judge found Lively’s harassment allegations were protected by the litigation privilege; the May settlement left Lively with no monetary recovery for her counterclaims but preserved the parties’ agreement to accept Liman’s ruling on fees and to forgo appeals.
Lively had pressed for attorneys’ fees, triple damages and punitive damages under the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, the 2023 California law designed to deter retaliatory suits against people who report sexual misconduct. Liman awarded fees and costs, and Lively’s team emphasized what they said the opinion allows beyond the immediate fee award. "The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms," Hudson said.
The ruling exposes a legal split between what the California statute authorizes and what Liman saw as the limits of federal law in this case. Liman found that triple damages and punitive damages could not be awarded under federal procedures presented to his court, even as Lively’s attorneys contend the settlement preserved her right to pursue those remedies by other means. "The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages," Hudson added, repeating the view that the fee award need not foreclose further recovery.
The background of the fight is stark: Lively accused Baldoni of sexually harassing her on set and then of running an online campaign to harm her reputation; Baldoni and allies at Wayfarer Studios countered with a defamation suit alleging Lively fabricated claims to take control of the 2024 film production. The defamation claim was dismissed, and the broader war between the two actors and their teams largely ended with the May settlement, leaving only Liman’s ruling about costs.
What remains unsettled is the practical aftermath. Liman’s order resolves the last open judicial question in the long dispute, and the parties agreed not to appeal, but the judge did not set a public figure for the fees and costs Wayfarer must pay. It is therefore unclear how large the financial obligation will be or whether any alternate procedural route will produce triple or punitive damages for Lively despite Liman’s federal‑law ruling.
The immediate takeaway is straightforward: Liman found Lively to be the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 and awarded her legal costs, but he rejected the extra‑punitive remedies she sought in federal court. The unresolved gap—how much Wayfarer will ultimately pay and whether further steps could produce additional damages—now stands as the only remaining question following the Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni settlement.
