His Daughter
1.1K posts
Ryan Reynolds shared his pride for how wife Blake Lively is handling her court case against ‘It Ends With Us’ director Justin Baldoni, which will head to trial after a judge dismissed 10 of her claims. bit.ly/4tROCHH
English
@ashleybrianaeve She trying to attach him to that on SEO. Very vindictive!! But Karma don't play, it's coming.
English
Blake’s team compares Justin to Weinstein & Justin’s team compares Blake to Dahmer!
Check out the video here: youtu.be/edbhGZjGoZc?si…
#blakelively #justinbaldoni #itendswithus
YouTube
English
An actor declined the role of Atlas on It Ends With Us because "his gut" told him not to take the role.
I wish I knew who this was, because the dude seems to have a straight connection to God. Who was able to hear the Universe and change his future for the better by listening?
English
@Uwabo2020 @AprilFl00559096 The judge has allowed a protected activity to be so broad that any time anyone opposed ANYTHING on set, including being asked to do their job counts lol. So now EVERYONE says they were retaliated against because, at her behest, everyone whined and insubordinated.
English
It’s despicable that Blake Lively’s team is NOW sayin Baldoni’s marketing focus on DV was retaliatory. He was boxed out of the movie’s marketing plan and events by Blake, then abandoned by Sony, but went on to do it alone and isolated. That’s not retaliation, that’s perseverance!
English
I bet you that Blake Lively made Alex Saks believe that she'd be directing It Ends With Us.
After Jenny and Blake went running to her, she decided SHE should run the movie.
courtlistener.com/docket/6951055…
English
@cruelechoes @AprilFl00559096 I truly truly wish they would come on the stand and try to sell that type of "retaliation" 😂 Especially with tons of messages showing what WF goals were in acquiring the rights to the books, partnering with No More... Then, cue the 'location share video'. This would be good!!!
English
@AprilFl00559096 I think it would be genuinely funny to put all these people now complaining that they were harmed by Justin talking about DV on the stand to ask them in cross-examination if the damn movie was about DV. And ask THEM to explain why they engaged in misleading marketing.
English
Come on my fellow band mates, let's pull out our tiny violins...
New York Post@nypost
Blake Lively debates ditching US as Hollywood ‘steers clear’ of actress’ Justin Baldoni drama: report trib.al/FQPKKE2
English
@TMZ Well she made it about money, so of course hwr money is at issue 🤷🏾♀️
English
@CJournalist24 This is what's wrong with the world! People so selfish they can't see beyond truth that may lie beyond their own agendas.
English
Unpopular opinion but I hope at least Liz Plank gets to go up on the witness stand because what do you mean Blake said "I'm doing this for you" 🤔 I have questions
AssholeMedia@urMAMASaHORDE
Liz Plank told Blake Lively that she would be on HER side, no matter what in 2023. Blake Lively calls Liz Plank "the best of friends." To learn more about Liz Plank and her MANY connections to Blake Lively, here's the link: assholemedia.wordpress.com/liz-plank/
English
@kiarajade2001 @urMAMASaHORDE That also does make sense. There is a video with the Pen Badgley thing... I truly think the girl has a severe mental/ psychological issue 🫣
English
@Uwabo2020 @urMAMASaHORDE They can show it's probable, especially because she has form for similar actions with Pen Badgely and Joe Alwyn
English
@schatow @blakelively Hi Roman, are you able to share the link to the filing? Thank you.
English
BL’S OPPOSITION TO TAG’S MSJ
This opposition opposes The Agency Group PR LLC’s (TAG) renewed summary judgment motion (MSJ), arguing TAG can be held liable under FEHA §12940(i) for aiding and abetting retaliation against plaintiff @blakelively (BL) who argues that TAG knowingly and substantially assisted Wayfarer’s (WF) coordinated media campaign to damage BL’s professional reputation, presenting evidence of strategic planning, untraceable tactics, and widespread negative publicity.
1️⃣ WHAT IS BL TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS OPPOSITION
BL positions TAG’s MSJ as narrowly premised on an asserted legal bar: TAG claims it cannot be liable because it did not do “traditional” employer conduct (hire/fire/supervise/compensate/discipline). BL responds that this argument is misdirected because she is not pursuing direct FEHA retaliation against TAG.
2️⃣ THE CLAIM AGAINST TAG: AIDING-AND-ABETTING RETALIATION (AND ONLY THAT)
BL emphasises she brings a single claim against TAG under California Government Code § 12940(i) for aiding and abetting retaliation—imposes liability on “any person” who aids, abets, incites, compels, or coerces a FEHA violation.
☞ Her alleged mechanism: TAG knowingly and substantially assisted WF’s retaliatory campaign by coordinating and executing an “astroturfing” effort intended to discredit and “bury” her after she complained of sexual harassment.
3️⃣ THE CENTRAL LEGAL DISPUTE: DIRECT LIABILITY VS. AIDING-AND-ABETTING LIABILITY
(A) TAG’S FRAMING (AS CHARACTERISED BY BL)
TAG frames the MSJ around whether it can be held directly liable under FEHA, arguing it falls outside FEHA because it didn’t exercise employer-like control over BL (hire/fire/supervise, etc.).
TAG also argues that a business-entity agent is directly liable only when performing “FEHA-regulated activities,” limited (in TAG’s telling) to “traditional activities performed by an employer.”
(B) BL’S COUNTER-FRAMING: § 12940(I) IS INDEPENDENT AND BROADER
BL’s key point: FEHA’s aiding-and-abetting provision is an independent basis of liability and does not require that the aider/abettor be capable of direct liability for the underlying retaliation.
Under § 12940(i), courts use common-law aiding-and-abetting concepts; liability hinges on:
— knowledge of the FEHA violation, and
— substantial assistance in carrying it out,
— rather than the defendant’s “employer status” or performance of employer functions.
4️⃣ HOW BL USES CASES TO BUILD THE LEGAL RULE SHE WANTS
(A) SMITH V. BP LUBRICANTS: NON-EMPLOYERS CAN BE FEHA AIDERS-AND-ABETTORS
BL cites Smith for the proposition that courts have expressly rejected the argument that a defendant must be the plaintiff’s employer to be liable under FEHA aiding-and-abetting.
BL quotes Smith’s holding that because FEHA prohibits “any person” from aiding or abetting, individuals and entities who are not the plaintiff’s employer may be liable for aiding/abetting the employer’s FEHA violation.
(B) ALCH: TALENT AGENCIES (NON-EMPLOYERS) CAN BE LIABLE UNDER § 12940(I)
BL relies on Alch to show that even talent agencies that did not hire/fire/supervise could be liable where they knowingly used their own practices to substantially assist discriminatory conduct.
BL uses Alch as an analogy for TAG: a non-employer entity can still be an aider/abettor if it independently participates in the unlawful scheme with knowledge.
(C) RENO/JONES: LIMITATION IS ABOUT EMPLOYEES AIDING THEIR OWN CORPORATE EMPLOYER (INTRACORPORATE LOGIC)
BL argues that Reno (and Jones) limit aiding-and-abetting in a specific scenario: supervisory employees acting on behalf of the corporate employer, where it becomes incoherent to say the corporation is aiding/abetting itself.
BL’s move is to contain Reno/Jones to employees (internal agents), and to argue the logic does not extend to outside business-entity agents like TAG.
(D) RADENTZ: TREATED AS A MISSTATEMENT, NOT A RULE NARROWING § 12940(I)
BL argues TAG’s reliance on Radentz is misplaced and that Radentz essentially applies Reno but describes it incorrectly—suggesting a mistaken reversal about who is meant to be covered.
5️⃣ THE “RAINES” ISSUE: WHY BL SAYS IT’S IRRELEVANT—AND WHY SHE SAYS SHE WINS ANYWAY
(A) WHY RAINES SUPPOSEDLY DOESN’T CONTROL
BL stresses Raines is a direct-liability case about when a business-entity agent can be directly liable if it meets the statutory definition of “employer” and performs FEHA-regulated functions.
BL emphasises that Raines expressly reserved the question of the “scope” of a business entity agent’s liability under § 12940(i).
Therefore, TAG’s effort to import Raines’s direct-liability limitation into § 12940(i) is framed as an improper extension.
(B) EVEN IF RAINES APPLIED, BL ARGUES TAG’S CONDUCT WAS “FEHA-REGULATED”
BL’s fallback: even under TAG’s preferred “FEHA-regulated activities” framing, TAG still loses because Judge Liman has already held that targeting professional reputation can be actionable as retaliatory adverse action (affecting job performance and advancement).
BL points to the court’s prior holding that FEHA covers not only actions affecting job performance but also career advancement, including dissemination of a negative employment reference, and that there was evidence for a jury to find TAG carried out such acts on WF’s behalf.
6️⃣ FACTUAL NARRATIVE SHIT: HOW BL CONNECTS TAG TO KNOWLEDGE + SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE
BL includes an “illustrative selection” of facts to show TAG’s knowledge of protected activity and alleged substantial assistance in a retaliatory media/digital campaign.
(A) KNOWLEDGE: TAG ALLEGEDLY ENTERED AFTER PROTECTED COMPLAINTS & WAS BRIEFED ON THEM
TAG was retained and onboarded in July 2024, after earlier complaints (May 2023), the Protections for Return to Production letter (Nov 2023), and the January 4, 2024 meeting where BL identified conduct she deemed sexually inappropriate and retaliatory.
TAG allegedly knew the Protections Letter had an anti-retaliation clause barring retaliation “of any kind,” including negative behaviour during “publicity and promotional work.”
TAG was allegedly briefed on the substance of BL’s allegations during an initial call; TAG notes reflect the engagement centred on taking strategic action related to BL’s “legal letter.”
(B) SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE: SCENARIO PLANNING + “FRIENDLY” PLACEMENTS + BACKGROUNDING REPORTERS
TAG discussed and then circulated a “scenario document” to “desensationalise” BL’s story and “set the stage” so that when a “hit piece” ran, it wouldn’t be “as big of a shock.”
The scenario planning allegedly emphasised BL’s “less than favourable reputation” and proposed “planting stories” about “weaponisation of feminism.”
TAG employees allegedly spoke regularly “on background” with “friendlies” at outlets including the Daily Mail, TMZ, and New York Post, while avoiding a written trail.
(C) “UNTRACEABLE / WITHOUT FINGERPRINTS”: INTENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING KNOWING PARTICIPATION
BL highlights messages suggesting TAG believed certain actions could “get us in a lot of trouble” if written down—e.g., “We can’t write we will destroy her,” and “you know we can bury anyone… But I can’t write that to him.”
BL also cites a message emphasising: “All of this will be most importantly untraceable.”
(D) DIGITAL CAMPAIGN EXECUTION (INFLUENCERS, NARRATIVE SEEDING)
BL asserts TAG connected WF with a digital mitigation firm described as capable of narrative seeding, algorithmic influence, content suppression, and online engagement “without fingerprints.”
BL also claims TAG engaged directly with influencers/content generators and provides an example of TAG messaging Perez Hilton with explicit suggested language (“You can say …”).
(E) TRADITIONAL MEDIA PLACEMENTS AND “NOT OBVIOUSLY PLACED” FRAMING
BL points to texts about a Daily Mail “think piece” framed so it was “not so obviously placed,” followed by “Yes” / “Let’s go,” and alleges the resulting article published negative framing about BL.
7️⃣ HOW THIS OPPOSITION TIES THE FACTS BACK TO FEHA RETALIATION
BL’s legal-to-factual bridge is that reputational harm campaigns—especially those that may affect career advancement and future work opportunities—can constitute retaliatory adverse employment actions under FEHA (as the court has already stated in the MSJ Opinion).
BL then argues the record supports that TAG helped plan and execute precisely that sort of conduct, making TAG’s assistance “FEHA-regulated” even under TAG’s own approach.
8️⃣ PROCEDURAL & SUMMARY-JUDGMENT POSTURE ARGUMENTS
BL stresses TAG “does not meaningfully dispute” the correct legal framework and, critically, “does not dispute the elements of aiding-and-abetting” (knowledge + substantial assistance), instead focusing only on whether the conduct is “employment-related practices.”
BL argues that, at minimum, these are “classic jury questions” and summary judgment should be denied.
#blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni
GIF
Roman Schatow@schatow
THE AGENCY GROUP PR LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Agency Group PR LLC’s (TAG) motion for summary judgment (MSJ) against @blakelively’s (BL) aiding-and-abetting retaliation claim (Seventh Cause of Action) under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). TAG argues that they performed only public-relations services, not employment-related functions, and therefore cannot bear direct FEHA liability or be held responsible as an aider and abettor. 1️⃣ BACKGROUND July 2024: Wayfarer (WF) considers crisis comms due to perceived reputation harm. July 25, 2024: meeting with TAG; WF says it doesn’t want “offensive” steps; no external comms outside internal teams. Aug 2, 2024: “Scenario Planning” options document. After “feud” stories: PR response—positive stories, mitigate negatives. TAG denies involvement in hiring/compensation/services/workplace standards regarding BL. TAG positions itself as a non-employment vendor (PR), not an HR / employer-delegated agent TAG says: — It was retained to protect the reputations of WF/Baldoni and the film, not to manage any work conditions. — It did not do anything with employment relating to BL (hiring, compensation, services, workplace standards). — Its conduct occurred after production, as “standard operating procedure” PR—distributing positive information and mitigating negative stories. — The alleged smear/retaliation timeline is post-relationship: Judge Liman observed the smear campaign allegedly began after BL’s working relationship concluded. TAG’s key move: even if there was wrongdoing by others, TAG asserts it was not participating in FEHA-regulated conduct. 2️⃣ THE STRUCTURE OF TAG’S ARGUMENTS (A) TAG cannot be directly liable for FEHA retaliation because it did not engage in FEHA-regulated activities. (B) TAG cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a FEHA violation because aiding/abetting shit in this context still requires an employment-related nexus and substantial assistance in conduct that FEHA regulates. 3️⃣ FEHA LIABILITY REQUIRES AN EMPLOYMENT NEXUS TAG frames the “fatal flaw” as BL trying to apply FEHA to a party outside the traditional employer–employee (or employer–contractor) sphere. TAG emphasises that FEHA has “historically been applied only” to scenarios involving hiring, compensation, and workplace standards, with the employer-employee relationship as the most important part. Direct FEHA liability: “business-entity agent” liability is limited (Raines) TAG asserts that Raines permits direct liability only when the agent carries out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of an employer. TAG highlights Raines’ “necessary minimum” language to argue a gatekeeping rule: no FEHA-regulated activities, no direct liability. How TAG tries to define “FEHA-regulated activities” without a definition Raines doesn’t define the term, then argues the context (screening applicants) shows it means “traditional activities performed by an employer” in an employment relationship. This is consistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for which courts “have held that an employer’s agent may be independently liable when the employer has delegated to the agent ‘functions that are traditionally exercised by an employer.’” 4️⃣ AIDING & ABETTING: TAG ARGUES THE SAME “EMPLOYMENT-RELATED CONDUCT” LIMITATION APPLIES TAG asserts aiding-and-abetting cases “uniformly deal with” employment-related conduct, so a PR firm that did not participate in employment-related practices cannot be an aider/abettor. TAG discusses several cases: Alch v. Superior Court: talent agencies potentially liable because their referral and screening practices helped perpetuate age discrimination (employment pipeline conduct). Malekzadeh v. Costco: an outside agent managing the employer’s disability accommodation program could be liable because it attended meetings and made functional determinations about essential job functions (direct participation in accommodation). Radentz v. American Assoc. of Physician Spec.: the proposition that §12940(i) was intended “to prohibit employers from aiding and abetting third-parties, such as customers or suppliers, not from aiding and abetting themselves.”—i.e., arguing FEHA focuses on employer misconduct rather than third-party vendor liability in reverse. TAG then argues: unlike those entities, TAG did not engage in employment-related practices; it “simply engaged in public relations work” after BL’s work ended. TAG points: no evidence BL was TAG’s customer/client, and TAG does not provide HR services. As Judge Liman has recently noted, “[t]he retaliatory smear campaign is alleged to have begun after Lively’s working relationship with the Wayfarer Parties concluded.” 5️⃣ REQUESTED RELIEF TAG requests the court grant summary judgment dismissing BL’s Seventh Cause of Action (aiding and abetting retaliation under FEHA). #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni
English
@kiarajade2001 @urMAMASaHORDE Doesn’t WF just need to show they had a reasonable belief that Blake was behind the scenes? And even if she wasn’t asking to unfollow, it still explains why they brought in PR. The remaining retaliation claims are less about the WHY and more about WHAT was happening (unfollow).
English
I did see that and I agree. Just to be technical with the wording, I can predict how she will spin it though...
The question is, "Did you cause or suggest to the CAST of It Ends With Us to stop following Justin Baldoni...?"
Colleen Hoover is not a cast member and she'll frame her answer to have been referring to people like Sklenar, Slate and Ferrer
We all know the truth but currently, none of them have admitted they unfollowed Justin at her request
English
@CJournalist24 Wanna bet there are messages of BL poisoning the cast and asking them to unfollow? I almost think it would be good to have them there and have them trip trying to justify their sudden turn against Baldoni 🤷🏾♀️
English
In recent motion Blake says "Hoover will testify she independently chose never to talk to Baldoni " but in depositions Hoover said Blake told her to unfollow Baldoni 🙄
English
@schatow Oh let them all on the stand to explain to a Jury how suffering the consequences of associating themselves in a tone deaf promotional campaign is WF's fault 🤦🏾♀️ Oh let them on that stand please!!
English
So according to #EsraHudson, the “collateral effects on women associated with the film” has apparently reached a very flexible definition of associated—one that now seems to include women who simply exist in the general cultural atmosphere near movies.
Because obviously, when discussing a film connected to @blakelively, it only makes sense that the list of “affected individuals” would extend to Liz Plank and Claire Ayoub—despite the minor technicality (xoxo / Mister Gottlieb) that they weren’t involved in the film, didn’t work on it, and were not, in fact, part of its production, or post-production.
At this rate, #EsraHudson will be adding women who once watched a trailer of the 'IEWU' movie on YouTube 🤓🤓
#blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni
Roman Schatow@schatow
BL'S OPPOSITION TO WF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE URL (PLAINTIFF BLAKE LIVELY’S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE): ⬇️ storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… #justinbaldoni #blakelively #livelyvsbaldoni
English
@CJournalist24 It doesn’t really matter what she suffered. She is neither plaintiff nor defendant. That's what happens when you decide to pick sides in a conflict 🤷🏾♀️ You decided to unfollow Justin l, you decided to participatenin his exclusion from Book Bonanza, you picked movie Blake's cut 🤷🏾♀️
English
"Hoover will testify that they experienced the collateral effects of Defendants’ actions, including online backlash and reputational harm." OMG did Wayfarer make her put out a coloring book based on a book about DV and matching nail polishes. She had online backlash way before Wayfarer
CitizenJournalist@CJournalist24
In recent motion Blake says "Hoover will testify she independently chose never to talk to Baldoni " but in depositions Hoover said Blake told her to unfollow Baldoni 🙄
English
@kiarajade2001 Liman: You get an expert, you get sn expert, everyone gets sn expert!!! Only way poor man can get a break 🤦🏾♀️
GIF
English
