Southern Gal
429 posts
#LivelyvWayfarer Why Lively Should Lose on the § 47.1 Motion
1. Extraterritoriality
California Civil Code § 47.1(a) provides as follows: A communication made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination is privileged under Section 47.
Subsection(b) provides as follows: "A prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant for making a communication that is privileged under this section shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successfully defending themselves in the litigation, plus treble damages for any harm caused to them by the defamation action against them, in addition to punitive damages available under Section 3294 or any other relief otherwise permitted by law."
It is on the basis of subsection(b) that Lively filed her motion seeking attorney's fees, costs, damages, treble damages and punitive damages.
In order to prevail, Lively must first establish that she made the "communication" described in § 47.1(a). No communication, no recovery. So, what is that communication? Luckily, the California defined that communication in subsection(d). Here's the excerpt:
"For the purposes of this section, “communication” means factual information related to an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination experienced by the individual making the communication, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
"(1) An act of sexual assault.
(2) An act of sexual harassment, as described in Section 51.9.
(3) An act of workplace harassment or discrimination, failure to prevent an act of workplace harassment or discrimination, aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing an act of workplace harassment or discrimination, or an act of retaliation against a person for reporting or opposing workplace harassment or discrimination, as described in subdivision (a), (h), (i), (j), or (k) of Section 12940 of the Government Code.
(4) An act of harassment or discrimination, or an act of retaliation against a person for reporting harassment or discrimination, by the owner of a housing accommodation, as described in Section 12955 of the Government Code.
(5) An act of sexual harassment, as defined in Section 212.5 and 66262.5 of the Education Code.
(6) An act of harassment or discrimination, or an act of retaliation against a person for reporting harassment or discrimination, based on any of the protected classes enumerated in Section 220, 221.51, and 66270 of the Education Code.
(7) An act of cyber sexual bullying, as defined in Section 48900 of the Education Code."
In reviewing the text of § 47.1(d)(reproduced above), you'll readily notice citations to California law with respect to the wrongful conduct that was being communicated. The inescapable conclusion from this excerpt is that, with the exception of sexual assault, the communication has to be about or based on alleged violations of California law.
Lively's allegation of sexual harassment and discrimination involved conduct that occurred in New Jersey (and possibly, NY) where the movie was filmed. These alleged acts did not involve violations of California law. Thus, Lively's communications regarding these acts do not meet the definition of communication in § 47.1(d). Again, no communication means no recovery.
The question is: in enacting § 47.1(d), did California intend to include communication about acts occurring beyond California borders? The language of the statute did not clearly indicate that communication about conduct outside California was covered. As the US Supreme Court stated, “when a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.” Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 109, 115 (2013).
Similarly, in Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 732, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 466 P.3d 309, 325 (2020), the California Supreme court noted California's "presumption against extraterritoriality—that is, a presumption that state law is intended to apply only within state borders." (emphasis added). This is merely a presumption. The Court added that: "Of course, legislatures can, and do, regulate beyond their territorial borders in appropriate circumstances."
However, here comes the most crucial language on this issue: "But courts ordinarily will not give extraterritorial effect to legislative enactments absent an affirmative indication that such was the Legislature's intent."
With respect to Section 47.1 and specifically, subsection 47.1(d) (dealing with communication), there is no affirmative legislative indication that the California legislature intended that the communication regarding matters occurring outside of California is covered by section 47.1(d). Lively has the burden of proof in this motion because she is the movant. She has not pointed to any affirmative legislative indication that section 47.1 should apply extraterritorially. Nor has she cited any caselaw that applied section 47.1 extraterritorially. In my opinion, this issue of extraterritoriality is enough to easily defeat Lively's motion.
I understand that Lively could also be alleging that she made a communication regarding her California CRD complaint. However, under section 47.1(d), communication about the filing of a complaint is not one of the types of communication listed. Section 47.1(d) lists communication about substantive conduct (such as sexual harassment) that occurred in violation of California laws. Also, communication section 47.1(d) means "factual information related to an incident of sexual assault" that occurred in violation of California laws. Filing a CRD complaint in California for acts that occurred in New Jersey, does not elevate the CRD complaint to a factual communication about conduct occurring in violation of California law.
2. The Language of Section 47.1(b). As mentioned earlier, this is the basis of Lively's motion. A careful examination of this subsection raises in important issues for Lively. Subsection (b) says that "A prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant for making a communication that is privileged..." Emphasis added. This subsection does not allow the prevailing defendant in any defamation action to sue and recover. It only allows the prevailing defendant to sue and recover if the defamation action was brought as a result of the defendant making privileged communication. As such, we must examine Wayfarer's defamation action against Lively.
One of the important things to note about Wayfarer's lawsuit against Lively is that it alleged 7 causes of action, but only one cause of action alleged defamation. As such, only the defamation count (2nd Cause of Action) is relevant for Sec 47.1 consideration.
Additionally, the defamation cause of action included allegations against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Sloane, and Vision PR, Inc. This means that Lively cannot recover (under Section 47.1) for the defamation allegations against Ryan Reynolds, Sloane, and Vision. She can only recover with respect to the defamation allegation against her on which she prevailed.
The central allegation in the defamation complaint is as follows:
"Defendants made one or more statements to persons other than Plaintiffs, including without limitation to the New York Times, to the effect that Plaintiffs engaged in, permitted, and/or failed to prevent sexually inappropriate conduct toward Lively and others, and that Plaintiffs retaliated against Lively and others for reporting the alleged sexual misconduct including by propagating false and misleading narratives about Lively for the purpose of damaging her image and reputation."
To properly assess this defamation allegation, we must remember that section 47.1 references privileged communication under Section 47. Thus, the question is whether communication with the NYT is deemed privileged communication under Section 47. The short answer is that it is not. Therefore, how can Lively recover for winning a defamation case based on non-privileged communication with NYT? Imho, she cannot recover. NYT apparently obtained a copy of the confidential CRD Complaint as well as other items not included in the complaint. Based on all these, NYT published their article.
Wayfarer's defamation action did not allege that Lively defamed them by filing a CRD complaint. They did not allege that Lively defamed them by making an employment complaint in New Jersey (protected activity) or for filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (privileged and protected activity). Because the defamation case was not based on Lively's protected activities, prevailing in the defamation action does not entitle Lively to recovery under Section 47.1.
English
How ‘mean girl’ Blake Lively is masterminding Hollywood comeback after settling lawsuit with Justin Baldoni trib.al/nBb9DxR
English
@judyju18 You are very ignorant and lack reading comprehension especially when it comes to the law.
English
Never underestimate male perpetrators remain perpetrators towards female abuse victim's.
Justin Baldoni & his PR continued defamatory smear campaigns against Blake Lively using corrupt outlet, articles written by females attacking another female justify a male perpetrator abuser
English
@JaysRealityBlog That's right Venita you don't know, you've never known. So keep your lying statements to yourself!
English
Venita from #SouthernCharm reacts to Jennifer’s IG story 👀
jay@JaysRealityBlog
#JenniferFessler with another message 👀
English
@LairdOfThManor Mark my words. Justin Baldoni will find some unknown story that he is inspired by. He will make a film. And will stand on that Oscar stage one day. To a standing ovation for his talent and for his ability to withstand powerful people trying to ruin him.
GIF
English
So… after all the hysterics, headlines, PR sermons and performative outrage, the ‘It Ends With Us’ lawsuit appears to have ended not with a bang, but with a very expensive whimper.
Justin Baldoni is now reportedly writing a book and negotiating a major tell-all interview. No NDA. No gag order. No carefully curated silence. Which means he is entirely free to speak… and one suspects Hollywood is suddenly developing a nervous twitch.
Meanwhile, Blake Lively has allegedly spent somewhere in the region of $35 million only to walk away with precisely nothing: no damages, no apology, and a joint statement so limp and lawyered-up it doesn’t even confirm she was harassed in the first place.
A masterclass in burning through a fortune for the privilege of achieving absolutely nothing.
English
@BLwifey You are a child speaking. You are ignorant. You no not the truth...but a narcissistic sociopath that was a liar ana a thief.
English
been seeing so many weird takes lately that blake should never have sued becuz it ruined her reputation/career. my guy, that's the reason why she sued! That
women or survivors shouldn't have to fear for their reputation or careers if they were to talk about their bad experiences
English
@PageSix I seem to remember that Lindsay dated Carl after both Paige & Danielle had dated him?! Her statement doesn't hold weight at all.
English
@people I don't believe a word you say anymore. You are not credible & never have been. You write lying shit that has no pace for publication.
English
After Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's Lawyers Declared 'Victory,' Legal Experts Say Millions Could Still Be at Stake people.com/what-blake-liv…
English
@schatow @blakelively This doesn’t seem to be an opposition to the actual 47.1 claims that she’s making; it’s only their opposition to additional evidentiary hearing, right? . Will WF be addressing why BL should NOT be granted 47.1 attorney fees or will the judge simply rule on it?
English
WF’S OPPOSITION TO BL’S LETTER RE: 47.1
1️⃣ BACKGROUND
(A) WHAT WAYFARER DEFENDANTS (WF) ASK THE COURT TO DO
WF ask Judge Liman to:
— Deny @blakelively’s (BL) request for further briefing.
— Deny any evidentiary hearing or other proceedings on whether she is entitled to recover under Section 47.1.
(B) WHAT BL REQUESTED
WF argue that BL’s request is as an effort—after settlement—to:
— File additional briefing “to address any impact of the Court’s intervening rulings” since the 47.1 motion was filed.
— Propose procedures for adjudicating compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
2️⃣ WHAT SECTION 47.1 PROVIDES ACCORDING TO WF
WF recite Section 47.1(b) as providing that a prevailing defendant in a defamation action over a privileged communication:
— Is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for successful defense.
— May recover treble damages for harm caused by the defamation action.
— May recover punitive damages (and “any other relief otherwise permitted by law”).
3️⃣ PROCEDURAL & TIMING ARGUMENTS
(A) THE KEY DEFAMATION CLAIM WAS DISMISSED LONG AGO; THE DEFENSE WAS “COMPLETED”
WF emphasise the timeline to argue supplemental briefing is unnecessary:
— The Court dismissed the Wayfarer Complaint, including the defamation cause of action against BL, on June 9, 2025.
— BL’s renewed Section 47.1 motion was fully briefed by September 29, 2025.
(B) BL PREVIOUSLY ARGUED THE COURT COULD DECIDE ENTITLEMENT WITHOUT EVIDENCE (UNDERCUTTING NEED FOR MORE BRIEFING)
WF point to BL’s own pretrial positions as inconsistent with her later request for supplemental briefing:
— In her April 11, 2026 pretrial statement, BL urged the Court to decide the 47.1 motion before trial and set a schedule to quantify any award—without requesting further briefing.
— At the April 28, 2026 pretrial conference, BL argued the Court could decide the legal question of retaliation (linked to the Section 47.1 relief theory) and that the Court “wouldn’t have to take evidence on it”—without requesting further briefing.
4️⃣ NO NO NO MRS LIVELY-REYNOLDS: THE REQUEST IS UNSUPPORTED
(A) NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT “INTERVENING RULINGS” CHANGED
WF’s central critique is that BL:
— Does not identify the “impact” of any intervening rulings.
— Does not explain why supplementation is needed now, particularly after the dismissal of the defamation claim.
(B) NO PLAUSIBLE LINK BETWEEN POST-DISMISSAL RULINGS & COSTS OF DEFENDING THE DISMISSED CLAIM
WF reject BL’s idea that later developments could affect:
— Costs to defend a defamation claim that was already dismissed.
(C) THE COURT AUTHORED THE INTERVENING RULINGS, SO EXTRA BRIEFING IS UNNECESSARY TO “EDUCATE” THE COURT
WF add a pragmatic argument:
— The Court does not need supplemental briefing to understand the impact of its own rulings on remedies tied to a defense completed by June 9, 2025.
#blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni
Roman Schatow@schatow
BL’S LETTER RE: 47.1 1️⃣ WHAT THE LETTER IS (NOT) ABOUT This is a letter to the Court following a settlement to: — Confirm the settlement agreement & identify what remains open. — Reinforce why the remaining § 47.1 issue should be decided quickly and in @blakelively's (BL) favour. — Seek leave to submit a short supplemental brief to update the Court given developments since the original § 47.1 briefing. The “one remaining claim”: BL repeatedly narrows the dispute—everything is resolved except BL’s request for remedies under § 47.1, which the parties submitted to the Court “with no right of appeal.” 2️⃣ WHAT § 47.1 DOES (AS FRAMED BY BL) (A) THE STATUTORY PRIVILEGE BL’s letter describes § 47.1 as imposing “severe and mandatory penalties” against parties who bring unsuccessful retaliatory defamation actions against sexual harassment/retaliation complainants. BL highlights three elements for the privilege: — Communication regarding an incident of sexual assault/harassment/discrimination (including retaliation). — Made without malice. — Speaker had a reasonable basis to file a complaint (whether filed or not). (B) LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE & REMEDY DESIGN BL’s letter relies heavily on legislative-intent framing: — § 47.1 is designed to allow victims to share experiences with “courts, agencies, the press, and others” without fear of suit. — It aims to deter retaliatory defamation litigation by imposing “significant remedies,” and those remedies should be available at the earliest stage, “typically through a motion to dismiss,” to avoid a punishing process. FFS, “… Ms. Lively respectfully requests that her Motion be resolved as promptly as possible.” 3️⃣ LITIGATION STRATEGY (A) CHARACTERISING WAYFARER’S SUIT AS THE STATUTE’S “PROTOTYPE” BL describes explicitly that Wayfarer’s defamation case is the “prototypical suit” the legislature intended to “short circuit.” — Merits: BL argues the communications are privileged and the defamation suit should fail under § 47.1. — Remedies: It supports treating BL as the “prevailing defendant” entitled to fees and damages. FFS, “… Ms. Lively is entitled not just to attorneys’ fees and costs, but also to compensatory damages tripled, and punitive damages.” (B) SATISFYING § 47.1 ELEMENTS The factual/legal bases for privilege: — Communication: Statements were related to sexual harassment/retaliation and were made in/through other privileged channels (administrative complaint; reporting). — No malice: She “genuinely believes she’s right.” — Reasonable basis: She complained in multiple ways to multiple people and to the CRD. — Protected activity stipulation: Some Wayfarer parties allegedly agreed to stipulate BL engaged in protected activity reflecting a good-faith reasonable belief. FFS, BL is lying… WF clearly stipulated that “The Wayfarer Defendants agree that FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL ONLY and with respect to the FEHA retaliation claim, the jury will be instructed to presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment.” 4️⃣ PROCEDURAL REQUEST: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING & TIMING Prior briefing is “done,” but the record has evolved: BL says briefing on the § 47.1 issue was completed by Sept. 29, 2025, but BL argues the factual record developed further “up to the eve of trial,” justifying an update. What BL asks for: Leave to file a ≤ 5-page supplemental brief addressing: — Impact of the Court’s intervening rulings since the motion was filed. — Updated procedures for adjudicating compensatory/punitive damages and fees/costs. — Deadline requested: within 7 days after leave is granted. #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni
English
@schatow @Stepsisterly I agree. After listening & watching his interview with Lauren, I finally understand what is the law & not some PR shit from Lively.
English
@Stepsisterly After watching an interview with Kevin Fritz so nope.
English
Roman Schatow@schatow
BL’S LETTER RE: 47.1 1️⃣ WHAT THE LETTER IS (NOT) ABOUT This is a letter to the Court following a settlement to: — Confirm the settlement agreement & identify what remains open. — Reinforce why the remaining § 47.1 issue should be decided quickly and in @blakelively's (BL) favour. — Seek leave to submit a short supplemental brief to update the Court given developments since the original § 47.1 briefing. The “one remaining claim”: BL repeatedly narrows the dispute—everything is resolved except BL’s request for remedies under § 47.1, which the parties submitted to the Court “with no right of appeal.” 2️⃣ WHAT § 47.1 DOES (AS FRAMED BY BL) (A) THE STATUTORY PRIVILEGE BL’s letter describes § 47.1 as imposing “severe and mandatory penalties” against parties who bring unsuccessful retaliatory defamation actions against sexual harassment/retaliation complainants. BL highlights three elements for the privilege: — Communication regarding an incident of sexual assault/harassment/discrimination (including retaliation). — Made without malice. — Speaker had a reasonable basis to file a complaint (whether filed or not). (B) LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE & REMEDY DESIGN BL’s letter relies heavily on legislative-intent framing: — § 47.1 is designed to allow victims to share experiences with “courts, agencies, the press, and others” without fear of suit. — It aims to deter retaliatory defamation litigation by imposing “significant remedies,” and those remedies should be available at the earliest stage, “typically through a motion to dismiss,” to avoid a punishing process. FFS, “… Ms. Lively respectfully requests that her Motion be resolved as promptly as possible.” 3️⃣ LITIGATION STRATEGY (A) CHARACTERISING WAYFARER’S SUIT AS THE STATUTE’S “PROTOTYPE” BL describes explicitly that Wayfarer’s defamation case is the “prototypical suit” the legislature intended to “short circuit.” — Merits: BL argues the communications are privileged and the defamation suit should fail under § 47.1. — Remedies: It supports treating BL as the “prevailing defendant” entitled to fees and damages. FFS, “… Ms. Lively is entitled not just to attorneys’ fees and costs, but also to compensatory damages tripled, and punitive damages.” (B) SATISFYING § 47.1 ELEMENTS The factual/legal bases for privilege: — Communication: Statements were related to sexual harassment/retaliation and were made in/through other privileged channels (administrative complaint; reporting). — No malice: She “genuinely believes she’s right.” — Reasonable basis: She complained in multiple ways to multiple people and to the CRD. — Protected activity stipulation: Some Wayfarer parties allegedly agreed to stipulate BL engaged in protected activity reflecting a good-faith reasonable belief. FFS, BL is lying… WF clearly stipulated that “The Wayfarer Defendants agree that FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL ONLY and with respect to the FEHA retaliation claim, the jury will be instructed to presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment.” 4️⃣ PROCEDURAL REQUEST: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING & TIMING Prior briefing is “done,” but the record has evolved: BL says briefing on the § 47.1 issue was completed by Sept. 29, 2025, but BL argues the factual record developed further “up to the eve of trial,” justifying an update. What BL asks for: Leave to file a ≤ 5-page supplemental brief addressing: — Impact of the Court’s intervening rulings since the motion was filed. — Updated procedures for adjudicating compensatory/punitive damages and fees/costs. — Deadline requested: within 7 days after leave is granted. #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni
English
Hey Blake & Ryan 80% of the public people are showing you that all comments are ORGANIC! You 2 are the most nasty, lying narcissistic sociopath people ever. Keep digging your hole you will keep sinking & sinking until there is nothing left of you. You just don't seem comprehend.
English
@Daily_MailUS @DM_Maureen_ Why put it behind a paywall? Ridiculous
English
Blake Lively is truly the worst of the worst in Hollywood. Entitled, delusional, utterly loathsome... and here's proof: MAUREEN CALLAHAN
English
English
🚨COMING SOON: A FULL-SEND SCREENING🚨 Grab your friends and join us May 26th for an exclusive showing of the extended and uncensored part 1 of the #SummerHouse Reunion before it airs on Bravo and @Peacock! Activate the group chat... tickets are on sale Tuesday, May 12th at 1pm ET via RESY. See you at AMC 19th St. Theater at 890 Broadway, New York NY 🍿
English
@Lawyeredup1 You still think I should show grace to this narcissistic sociopath?? It will never happen now.
English
#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.
English
English
🚨 WATCH: Megyn reminds the audience that Blake Lively's legal attempt attempted to subpoena her for interviewing Justin Baldoni's lawyer:
"You are a liar and your legal team are a bunch of liars."
English
@festivetables @jfully19 I have a little bit. I like LGA too - she's in employment lawyer in California she really knows her stuff too.
English
@anabellsouthern @jfully19 I can see that.
Did you follow Kassidy at all?
English
🗣️ Saying it louder for those that struggle with comprehension.
Wayfarer & Justin Baldoni gave nothing up. Blake is the one who ultimately wanted out once she realized she was cornered. She was the one who had to prove her case (based on lies.) JB didn't have to prove anything.
English
@festivetables @jfully19 I disagree. One thing about her is that she knows the law as an Attorney. I've learned a lot from her.
English
@jfully19 NAG is arrogant and condescending.
She has said that no money was exchanged in the settlement which is a stupid take.
It’s highly likely Baldoni let Lively off the hook in exchange for a 9 figure payout.
That is what Justin had to negotiate.
English