CJ·Celebrity Dockets

When Blake is responsible for her own smear campaign AGAIN. Hearing so many ppl say it's tougher to feel sympathy. IEWU Déjà vu

⚖️COURT UPDATE⚖️The Jane Doe civil case against Cardi B and related defendants in Clark County is now officially on the road to trial — with a 14-day jury trial set for October 11, 2027, including 3 days for Voir Dire in Department 1 before Judge Yeager. The order lays out the full pretrial calendar. Motions to amend pleadings or add parties are due by January 13, 2027. Initial expert disclosures are also due January 13, 2027, with rebuttal experts due by February 16, 2027. Discovery closes April 13, 2027, dispositive motions are due May 13, 2027, and motions in limine must be filed by August 12, 2027. The order expressly says omnibus motions in limine are NOT allowed. The court also set a status check on settlement conference for November 25, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., a trial-readiness status check for August 4, 2027 at 9:00 a.m., and a pretrial conference / calendar call for September 29, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. That means this case now has a full structured runway from discovery through trial assignment. One notable detail, the order says the case will be tried on a five-week stack beginning October 11, 2027, meaning multiple cases may be stacked for that trial period and the court will later assign a more specific start date within that window depending on priorities and which earlier cases settle. The judge also warns that failure to comply with the order or appear when required can lead to serious sanctions, including dismissal, default judgment, monetary sanctions, or even vacation of the trial date. FULL DOCUMENT BELOW👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾 Scheduling & Trial Order - drive.google.com/file/d/1n4w0df…

⚖️COURT UPDATE⚖️A Los Angeles judge has thrown out Brian King Joseph’s complaint against Treyball Studio Management and Will Smith — for now. In a May 5, 2026 minute order, the court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to the entire complaint and granted their motion to strike, giving Joseph 30 days leave to amend. The case alleged that Joseph was wrongfully terminated from a musical tour after reporting what he described as a disturbing intrusion into his Las Vegas hotel room, and asserted claims under FEHA, Labor Code § 1102.5, the Bane Act, the Ralph Act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. But Judge Michael Shultz found the complaint, as currently pleaded, did not state viable claims. The ruling is especially important on the sexual harassment theory. The court said it was not unreasonable to infer that the note and items left in Joseph’s room could suggest intended sexual conduct, but held that the allegations still described only one incident and did not amount to conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment under the law. That finding then undercut several of the retaliation-based claims that depended on the reported conduct qualifying as protected activity. The court also rejected the whistleblower and public-policy theories as pleaded, finding the complaint did not sufficiently show that Joseph had reported unlawful conduct by the employer, an employee, or a contractor in the way required for those statutes. On the Bane Act and Ralph Act claims, the judge found the alleged facts did not support threats, intimidation, coercion, violence, or threatened violence by defendants themselves. On the motion to strike, the court specifically targeted allegations suggesting “predatory behavior” and certain punitive-damages-related assertions, finding some were irrelevant or conclusory. The judge also held that, as pleaded, the termination decision did not rise to the level of despicable conduct needed to support punitive damages, and that the complaint lacked facts tying that level of wrongdoing to a corporate managing agent. FULL DOCUMENTS BELOW👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾 ORDER - drive.google.com/file/d/19jVr_J…

⚖️COURT UPDATE⚖️A new Amici brief has now landed against Drake in the Second Circuit — and it pushes a different theory for why his “Not Like Us” case should fail. On May 6, 2026, Circuit Judge Maria Araújo Kahn granted leave for a Yale Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic team to appear on behalf of amici The Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression and Professor Lyrissa Lidsky for purposes of filing their brief. The amici are not just defending the district court’s dismissal on the usual opinion-ground theory. Their brief argues that even if Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics could be treated as defamatory factual assertions, Drake’s claim should still fail because consent is an absolute defense to defamation, and Drake allegedly invited the very kind of accusation he is now suing over. The core of that argument is Drake’s own role in the rap battle. The amici brief says Drake explicitly prodded Lamar to respond and specifically invited lyrics about him “likin’ young girls,” then later acknowledged that the so-called “Epstein angle” was what he expected. Based on that, the amici argue the record shows Drake consented to the allegedly defamatory statements at issue, or at minimum assumed the obvious risk of them in the context of a public rap feud. The brief also leans heavily on broader free-expression concerns. It frames rap battles as a long-standing expressive tradition built on insults, exaggeration, provocation, and rebuttal, and argues that letting a participant use defamation law after openly escalating that kind of exchange would chill artistic speech far beyond this one dispute. Importantly, the amici are urging the Second Circuit to affirm the dismissal even if it disagrees with the district court’s specific reasoning. In other words, they are offering the panel an alternative path- uphold the throwout not just because the lyrics were nonactionable opinion, but because Drake supposedly consented to the statements as part of the battle itself. FULL DOCUMENT BELOW👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾 AMICI CURIAE - drive.google.com/file/d/192IAEn…

@CBSNews Why did he ask him about being a tv villain 4 times why did he ask about experience 3 times lol his interviewing skills are terrible !

FULL INTERVIEW: Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt spoke exclusively to CBS News this week about his campaign, his vision for the city, and why it's resonating so strongly with voters on social media.

@TheGeekyCast Oliver's whole soliloquy is a mood too

“Being a hero is bullshit” - mark grayson

Watch @LethalLauren904 interview with Kevin, such a wonderful person he is I think… 🥺🥺🥺 INTERVIEW: Justin Baldoni's Attorney Kevin Fritz Talks Lively's Aggressi... youtu.be/mZekLGvgYbQ?si… via @YouTube

Justin Baldoni’s attorney Kevin Fritz on who won the settlement between Blake Lively and Wayfarer Studios, no NDAs

Wayfarer Responds to Lively's Request for Leave to File 47.1 Briefing- 🔥🔥🔥 "After agreeing to a settlement in which she dismissed her three remaining claims without the Wayfarer Defendants paying a cent of the $300 million in damages she was demanding, Plaintiff Blake Livley seeks leave to submit further briefing..."

Justin Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman calls out Blake Lively, "If she’s doing this for survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment and retaliation as she says, then why don’t you take the stand at trial and prove it to the world? A trial would have exposed her lies and the entire smear she was talking about in her interviews that she did."

She lied and the proof is on the docket. I of course will be reposting all of it. Justice for Justin Baldoni.

Spencer Pratt crushed the Debate and gave us a banger new Gif

@people Blake Lively is doing what she does best which is lie. Just look at this email she sent saying she was asked to take over the movie 🤭 or how about this message with her deranged hubby Ryan saying to go full “Ari” I mean that sounds like a threat to me 🤔

Blake Lively is truly the worst of the worst in Hollywood. Entitled, delusional, utterly loathsome... and here's proof: MAUREEN CALLAHAN

@kattnotwilliams Headed over

@CelebDockets No - she was injured while doing a football drill with him outside. Rather than it just being an injury claim, though, Hall is claiming Hill got enraged and intentionally charged her because she embarrassed him in front of his friends and family

Opening statements are underway in Sophie Hall v. Tyreek Hill. Here's a super throwback video I did about the complaint: youtu.be/qJq40LTmp_g?si…

#LivelyvWayfarer Settlement: Code Section 47.1 Motion Issues Despite the settlement Lively's Section 47.1 Motion remains pending. With respect to Lively's chances of winning this motion, there are some issues to consider: 1. It still has to be determined as a factual matter, whether Lively made her complaints with malice. "A communication made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination is privileged under Section 47" 47.1(a) 2. Does California Code, Civil Code § 47.1 apply extraterritorially? The alleged incidents of sexual harassment and discrimination occurred in New Jersey and possibly, NY. The defamation case was filed in NY and Lively is not a California resident. 3. Is Lively a prevailing defendant in the defamation case? Section 47.1(b) applies to "[a] prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant..." Judge Liman dismissed Wayfarer's defamation case pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss. Wayfarer still had the right to appeal that decision. However, apparently, in consideration of the Lively's dismissal of her case, Wayfarer dismissed their own case and waived their right to appeal the dismissal of their defamation claim. Thus, Wayfarer can reasonably argue that Lively did not prevail in the defamation case because Lively "paid" consideration to induce Wayfarer not to pursue an appeal. By the way, if Lively believes she is the prevailing party in Wayfarer's defamation action because of the settlement/dismissal and waiver of appellate rights, then Wayfarer is the prevailing party in Lively's complaint because of the settlement/dismissal and Lively's waiver of her appellate rights. Simple logic. You can't have it both ways! 4. Civil Code 47.1 has a punitive damages component, but I don't think Judge Liman will award punitive damages against Wayfarer – given his decision that: many of the acts that Lively complained of were not sexual harassment, and that Wayfarer had a right to make defensive statements. Also, Judge never held that the Wayfarer's defamation action was frivolous. 5. With respect to the attorney’s fees, the only attorney’s fees that can be properly awarded to Lively (if she wins) is only the portion related to her defense of the defamation claim by Wayfarer. 6. Civil Code 47.1 has a provision for treble damages. This provision is not what many people think it is. It is actually very specific and tough to prove. Lively has to prove not that she suffered damages from the alleged smear campaign. Nope. She has to prove that she suffered damages form the harm caused by the defamation action (case) filed by Wayfarer. If she is able to prove those specific damages, the damages will then be tripled. What evidence do we have that Lively suffered any harm as a result of the defamation case filed by Wayfarer? What is the monetary value of the alleged harm? ** By the way, I think it was a mistake for Wayfarer to agree to this language: "The Stipulating Parties further agree that they hereby irrevocably waive any appeal from the Court’s determination of the 47.1 Motion." In case of an unfavorable decision by Judge Liman, Wayfarer is giving up their right to appeal. Big mistake, imho. *** Lively's lawyers have now released a statement which almost reads like a declaration of victory. This underscores the point I have been making that the PR will begin after the settlement and it has begun.

Making this statement while literally weapinizing MSM themselves ok Blake

Blake Lively GLOATS about settling her case, despite it getting gutted by the judge before reaching a settlement. More out now on the No Filter with Zack Peter podcast 😤

Blake lively is delusional