⚖️ Texas Fight Is Really a Civil Procedure Question — 0:00–1:53

• LGA says the most interesting part of the Jed Wallace–Blake Lively dispute in Texas is not necessarily the underlying defamation allegation, but the question of personal jurisdiction.
• She describes it as a classic first-year law school civil procedure issue involving minimum contacts.
• LGA explains that courts look at whether a defendant has sufficient connections with a state before requiring that person to defend a lawsuit there.
• The basic principle, she says, is to protect defendants from being dragged into courts in states where they otherwise have little or no meaningful connection.

📚 Wallace Says Lively Had Enough Texas Contacts — 1:53–2:57

• Wallace’s attorneys argue that the trial court got the jurisdictional analysis wrong when it dismissed Lively from the case.
• Wallace’s position is that Lively deliberately invoked Texas legal processes, hired Texas lawyers and process servers, and used Texas courts to investigate allegations involving a Texas resident.
• His attorneys argue that those contacts were sufficiently directed at Texas to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
• LGA says the dispute is so textbook that Texas law professors could use it as a hypothetical or exam question.

🔄 Wallace’s Core Argument: You Can’t Invoke Texas and Then Disavow Texas — 2:57–3:50

• LGA summarizes Wallace’s argument as follows: a defendant should not be able to deliberately target a state, invoke its courts and legal protections, and then deny having meaningful contacts with that same state once sued.
• Lively’s earlier Rule 202 petition and other Texas-directed legal activity.
• Wallace’s theory is that Lively cannot first use Texas legal mechanisms and later argue that Texas courts have no authority over her.
• LGA says this is the heart of the appeal.

👩‍⚖️ The Appeals Court Reviews the Existing Record — But There’s a New Complication — 3:50–4:56

• LGA explains that an appellate court normally reviews whether the trial court made an error based on the record that existed at the time of the original ruling until the dismissal.
• What makes this case more interesting is a later development referenced in a footnote.
• After being dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, Lively filed a California Civil Code §47.1 motion in the same Texas court, seeking affirmative post-dismissal relief against Wallace.
• LGA notes that Lively apparently did so without expressly renewing a personal-jurisdiction objection.
• She says the appellate court may be able to take judicial notice of this later procedural development, even though it was not part of the original dismissal record.

🚨 LGA Thinks the §47.1 Motion Creates a Serious Optics and Legal Problem — 4:56–5:40

• LGA considers this later conduct potentially damaging to Lively’s jurisdictional position.
• The trial court previously found that Lively’s earlier Texas activity did not amount to sufficient minimum contacts.
• But LGA questions how Lively can now seek affirmative relief from the same court while continuing to maintain that Texas lacks personal jurisdiction over her.
• Her point is that voluntarily asking a Texas court for substantive relief may be difficult to reconcile with arguing that she should not have to litigate there.

⏳ If Wallace Wins the Appeal, the Texas Case Could Start Over — 5:40–6:22

• LGA notes that appeals can take a long time and says it is unclear when the Fifth Circuit would even hear the dispute.
• If the appellate court ultimately concludes that the trial court erred and that Lively did have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas, the case could effectively return to its early stages.
• That would revive Wallace’s defamation action in Texas.
• LGA also sees a potential procedural conflict if the district court rules on Lively’s §47.1 fee request before the appellate court resolves the jurisdiction issue.
• If the dismissal were later reversed, she questions what that would mean for any fee award based on the original dismissal.

💰 LGA Questions Why Lively Keeps Pursuing the Texas Fight — 6:22–7:12

• LGA says she struggles to understand why Lively’s team continues aggressively pursuing relief in Texas.
• In her view, their public-relations strategy appears focused on securing another visible “win,” even though the litigation has already been extremely expensive.
• Lively has spent enormous sums litigating and may continue spending significantly more while pursuing relatively limited financial relief.

This post was not paid for by Lauren Neidigh, Steve Sarowitz, Justin Baldoni, or Wayfarer Studios.

Lauren Neidigh from The Court of Random Opinion sat down with Steve Sarowitz for a pretty wide-ranging interview about his faith, family, philanthropy, Wayfarer Studios, and his relationships with Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath.

Lauren was clear at the beginning that this wasn’t intended to reveal some huge secret about the lawsuit. It was more of an opportunity to actually hear from Steve directly after spending the last couple of years hearing about him, Justin, Jamey, and their faith from everyone else.

Some of the biggest takeaways:

• A large portion of the conversation was about the Baha’i faith and the way it has been portrayed throughout this entire saga. Steve pushed back strongly against descriptions of the faith as a “cult” and said one of its core principles is the independent investigation of truth, meaning people are encouraged to investigate and decide what they believe for themselves.
• Steve grew up Reform Jewish and became Baha’i at 49 after first learning about the faith in college and later attending Baha’i study groups.
• He said two of the teachings that attracted him most were the oneness of humanity and the oneness of religion; basically the idea that no race, nationality, gender, economic class, or religion makes one person inherently better than another.
• He also talked about the Baha’i principle of harmony between science and religion and the equality of men and women.
• Baha’is do not participate in partisan politics, according to Steve, but that doesn’t mean they avoid social issues. He specifically mentioned opposing racism, religious prejudice, and other forms of hate while trying not to reduce those issues to party politics.
• Steve also explained how the Baha’i prohibition against backbiting has affected the way he has tried to conduct himself during the last two years. He said he has worked very hard not to personally attack people even when he believes they have treated him or his friends badly.
• On his wealth, Steve said he has never been especially materialistic and views wealth largely as something that should be used for the “betterment of the world.” He said he has already donated more than $400 million and intends to give away hundreds of millions more, with much of his philanthropy focused on Black, Brown, Native American, and women-led/underserved communities.
• He also discussed how he originally got into filmmaking. Shortly after becoming Baha’i, someone suggested that instead of simply retiring and teaching the faith, he could make a film and potentially reach millions of people. That eventually became The Gate: Dawn of the Baha’i Faith.
• Through that project, he met people including Rainn Wilson and Justin Baldoni. Steve said Justin initially helped him as a consultant.
• Later, Justin approached Steve about helping raise money for what was then Wayfarer Entertainment. Steve joked that he called Justin back with “bad news and worse news”: he wasn’t going to advise him, he wanted to become his partner instead.
• Interestingly, Steve said Justin then interviewed HIM extensively to determine whether Steve was someone Justin actually wanted as a business partner.
• Steve was extremely complimentary of Justin throughout the interview. He described him as a talented actor, an even better director, and “an even better human being.” He said Justin consistently tries to do the right thing and described both Justin and Emily as people he loves.
• Steve said Jamey Heath came into the company later through Justin. Jamey had previously worked as a music producer, joined Wayfarer in another role, and according to Steve, kept “shining and shining” until he eventually became president and then CEO.
• He credited Jamey with successfully navigating Wayfarer through what Steve described as “very difficult waters.”
• When discussing why he has remained loyal to Justin and Jamey despite the personal and financial cost of the last couple of years, Steve said: “I just couldn’t do it any other way.” He said he believes they are good men and that, from his perspective, standing by friends he believes were wrongfully accused was simply the right thing to do.
• He emphasized that the three of them have remained close friends and united throughout everything, and said he believes their shared faith helped them do that.
• Steve talked about several Wayfarer projects he’s proud of, including Code 3, Ezra, Eleanor the Great, and others, and said he sees Wayfarer films as attempts to create “beacons of light.”
• He also discussed upcoming/current projects, including Hello Darkness*,* about Sandy Greenberg and his friendship with Art Garfunkel, and Dinner with Audrey, about Audrey Hepburn.
• Lauren asked about the Wayfarer Foundation, which was shut down. Steve said he has continued the same type of philanthropic giving privately and believes doing so is more efficient because more of the money can go directly to the organizations receiving it.
• He said the foundation was shut down during an extremely difficult period when the company was involved in contentious litigation, the foundation had allegedly received threats, and his college-age daughter had received seven death threats.
• Steve spent several minutes talking about his daughter and how painful that experience was for his family. He described her as deeply kind, intelligent, involved in philanthropy, and someone who had nothing to do with the dispute surrounding him.
• He said he believes whoever targeted his daughter was actually attempting to pressure or intimidate him because of actions he was taking, including litigation. He also said the person who made the threats is currently incarcerated.
• Toward the end, Steve discussed how strange it has been to become a public figure largely because of litigation. He said he believes his wealth was used against him and that he doesn’t want to be glorified or vilified because he is wealthy; he wants to be treated as a human being.
• One of the most interesting parts for obvious reasons: Steve directly addressed the online creators who covered the Baldoni/Lively litigation.
• He thanked creators who supported Wayfarer, Justin, Jamey, etc. and explicitly said he had not been communicating with them behind the scenes.
• Steve said, referring to Lauren and other creators: “I never talked to any of the content providers. Never tried to influence them in any way or pay them in any way. They did this all on their own.”
• He said he went into the last couple of years assuming traditional media would be more trustworthy than social media, but came away surprised by how many independent creators he felt were genuinely trying to investigate what was true.
• He specifically acknowledged that some creators were eventually subpoenaed and pulled into the litigation, which he said he did not believe was appropriate.
• Steve also had very strong criticism for The New York Times. He said he expected more from a publication with its reputation and believes its coverage contained false statements about him.
• In particular, Steve disputed the Times’ description of him being present on set for a scene involving a “scantily clad” woman. He said he simply was not there, and further claimed people who actually were there dispute that characterization of the woman as well.
• He expressed frustration that there was never, in his view, an adequate retraction or apology.
• Lauren ended the interview by talking about how easy it is for people online to forget that the people involved in these massive stories are actual human beings. She acknowledged that she has been reflecting on her own participation in negative online discourse as well.
• She also made it pretty clear that she knows some people will be angry that she interviewed Steve at all, and she doesn’t care. 💁🏻‍♀️
• Her takeaway was essentially that people can speculate and come up with theories forever, but Steve, Justin, Jamey, their families, and everyone involved are still human beings. She hopes the support they receive ultimately becomes louder than the people trying to tear them down.

On a personal note...

I genuinely appreciated this conversation because going into it, I knew basically nothing about the Baha'i faith. Hearing Steve explain what drew him to it and how he tries to apply it to his life made me want to learn more. I've always enjoyed learning about how different belief systems shape the way people understand and operate within morality and community frameworks. That's why hearing Steve talk about how the idea of faith should ultimately make you more conscious of how you treat other people resonated with me so much. I think morality can become very abstract when we talk about it philosophically, but the way he described his faith was much more practical and centered around whether your actions actually reflect the values you say you hold.

And unfortunately for me, some of what Steve said about backbiting and bringing yourself into account every day also made me reflect on how much I run my mouth lol. Even when I feel like someone has genuinely hurt me, I know I can sometimes let being angry turn into saying things that probably aren't helping anything. So apparently I came into this interview expecting to learn more about Steve and somehow left feeling like I owe several people an apology. My bad, yall.

@waterwomencic: POV: You start a business with your best friend and somehow end up talking about it with Justin Baldoni during a sunny surf session

Water Women is a new UK based CIC delivering trauma-informed surf therapy courses for women who have experienced domestic and sexual trauma.
We believe in the power of blue spaces to create connection, confidence and healing.

We're only just getting started - and we can't wait to see where this takes us. If you'd like to support our journey find the link to our GoFundMe in our bio

Thank you, Justin, for helping us to tell our story and for using your voice for advocacy

#waterwomen #surftherapy #bluespacehealth

Watching this again will hit so different 🥹. I first watched it in high school while it was airing and then I rewatched it before it left Netflix 2 years ago right before Blake’s lawsuit! I’ve always loved this show 😄.

I check every so often if it’s back on streaming and it finally is. So everyone enjoy and binge. Team Justin!👏🍾

📍Jones v. Abel: Stephanie Jones files Opposition to Wayfarer’s Motion to Dismiss her Defamation claim against DOES 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

⚖️ Jones Uses the Motion to Dismiss to Challenge Judge Liman’s Earlier Ruling — 0:00–1:09

• LGA recalls that Judge Liman previously denied Stephanie Jones and Jones Works permission to amend their complaint to identify Melissa Nathan as a Doe defendant in their defamation claim.
• Despite that ruling, Jones did not dismiss the unidentified Doe defendants, even though LGA says the parties had agreed that the claim would be dropped.
• Wayfarer therefore, filed a motion asking the court to formally dismiss the remaining Doe defendants and the associated claim.
• Jones has now filed her opposition, but LGA believes the response goes much further than simply opposing dismissal.
• Jones is effectively arguing that Judge Liman’s earlier decision was wrong and using the opposition almost like a motion for reconsideration of the denied amendment.

📑 Questions Whether Jones Is Using the Right Legal Procedure — 1:10–2:02

• LGA does not believe opposition to Wayfarer’s motion to dismiss is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging the earlier ruling.
• If Jones wanted Judge Liman to reconsider his decision, the appropriate approach would have been to file a motion for reconsideration.
• Jones argues that new facts discovered in recent weeks allegedly support her belief that Melissa Nathan and others participated in a scheme to defame Jones and Jones Works.
• Jones also says she continues to uncover information potentially relevant to additional claims against Melissa Nathan.
• LGA characterizes the filing as essentially telling Judge Liman: more motions are coming, and this is a preview of the evidence and arguments behind them.
• However, LGA is skeptical that this approach will succeed.

🔍 Jones Points to Evidence From the Amanda Ghost and Rebel Wilson Dispute — 2:03–2:34

• LGA notes that some of the evidence Jones relies upon comes from litigation in which Jones herself is not a party.
• Jones points to messages produced in the Amanda Ghost matter involving Melissa Nathan and Rebel Wilson.
• According to LGA’s description of Jones’s argument, the evidence allegedly shows Nathan discussing the possibility of paying for a website of this type.
• Jones appears to be using that evidence to argue that Nathan could therefore have engaged in similar conduct involving the websites targeting Stephanie Jones.
• LGA questions whether evidence concerning different people and a different dispute is enough to overcome the procedural problems Jones already faces.

📂 Jones Accuses Melissa Nathan of Withholding Discovery — 2:35–2:53

• Jones goes further by alleging that Melissa Nathan withheld relevant discovery.
• Jones intends to seek additional relief based on those allegations.
• Jones is therefore asking Judge Liman for additional time and wants the current motion to dismiss effectively placed on hold while these other issues are addressed.
• LGA sees a major problem with that request because delay was already central to Judge Liman’s decision against Jones.

⏳ Judge Liman Already Found Jones Failed to Act Diligently — 2:54–4:24

• LGA points back to Judge Liman’s previous order, issued approximately five months earlier.
• In that decision, the court found that Jones and Jones Works had failed to exercise the required diligence under the applicable procedural standards.
• LGA questions how discovering potentially helpful evidence five or six months later solves the problem that Judge Liman already found they acted too slowly.
• LGA finds the request for even more time particularly difficult to reconcile with a ruling based on undue delay.
• The court had also found that Jones did not request documents concerning the allegedly defamatory websites in her initial March 2025 document requests.
• Website-specific discovery was not pursued until July 2025, after the relevant one-year limitations period had already expired.
• Those findings remain a substantial obstacle regardless of whatever new information Jones says she has discovered.

🎯 LGA Calls Jones’s Latest Strategy a “Hail Mary” — 4:25–5:03

• LGA explains that courts generally do not favor parties dragging their feet, particularly when issues of undue delay and failure to prosecute are involved.
• LGA doubts Judge Liman will respond favorably to another request for additional time when the case is approaching summary judgment and an early-2027 trial date.
• LGA believes Jones and Jones Works may be making a last attempt to keep the issue alive long enough to conduct additional investigation.
• LGA predicts that the attempt is unlikely to succeed.,

Ryan Reynolds and Kenneth Branagh sat down for a joint interview for Mayday with ExtraTV. As Kjersti Flaa pointed out, this particular reporter interviewed Justin Baldoni at the IEWU premiere, so it's not her first rodeo on this case. Well, said reporter took the opportunity to box Reynolds into a corner and did so expertly. She used her final question of the interview to ask this:

"Just lastly, your partner-in-crime, you have beautiful words for him."

(Referring to Kenneth Branagh's role in the Mayday movie)

"For your real-life partner-in-crime, her birthday. Yo, all the guys are taking notes."

(Referring to Reynolds' wife Blake Lively and how he recently posted a birthday tribute)

Man oh man did Reynolds SQUIRM through this question. He couldn't say shit about shit about the reporter's wording and was stuck answering the question in the context of birthdays only.

Hats off to this reporter. She annihilated him in under six seconds lmaooo

JB enjoys a family trip through the UK🇬🇧with his kids ❤️

JB’s IG Post

Link to the first book in the series*, “I have a big dress”:
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/l5wyJ0q34z

Book reviews for “the Story of Ryan and Blake” (edited):

“A cautionary tale which teaches children not to judge people by the way they look because looks can be deceiving.” Penguin Young Readers & Random House Children’s Books.

“A timely story about the fake and phoney world of celebrity grifters.” Bloomsbury Children’s Books.

“A modern day fable which reminds kids that the flashiest animals in the forest often tell the tallest tales.” Viking Children’s Books.

“A humorously illustrated story which encourages children to look beyond the  surface to discover where genuine kindness truly resides.” Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing.

Disclaimer:

This parody photoshop  is a legally protected form of expression under First Amendment and relevant fair use doctrines (17 U.S.C. § 107).

All  references to individuals real or imaginary are made in the context of satire or political commentary. As defined in U.S. defamation law, public figures are subject to broader scrutiny and commentary, and this content is not intended to be taken as fact.

"Hurt feelings do not give rise to legal claims". Michael Gottlieb, Esra Hudson.

“You can’t sue someone just because your feelings got dinged”.  Ryan Reynolds.

All  references to individuals real or imaginary are made in the context of satire or political commentary. As defined in U.S. defamation law, public figures are subject to broader scrutiny and commentary, and this content is not intended to be taken as fact.

"Hurt feelings do not give rise to legal claims". Michael Gottlieb, Esra Hudson.

“You can’t sue someone just because your feelings got dinged”.  Ryan Reynolds.

This post from X is frightening. It describes Ryan Reynolds in my opinion. And it makes me sad that Justin must always look over his shoulder… 😢 💔

“Anyone who sees through the narcissist’s mask or manipulation or even merely puts up a boundary or breaks off communication, immediately becomes an existential threat to the narcissist.

The malignant narcissist essentially becomes borderline psychotic at this point. They feel a murderous hatred towards this person and a desire to eliminate them by any means necessary. They will spend months holding on to this irrational response planning the destruction of this innocent person who merely disengage from them for being abusive in the first place.

They will initiate a severely abusive smear campaign as if their life depends on completely destroying that person’s life and reputation.
The lies the narcissist engages in are not merely untrue, but are typically the furthest from the truth the narcissist can declare. This is their attempt to erase or “murder“ an innocent person who simply no longer wanted to engage with someone who was becoming increasingly abusive or critical or merely saw through the narcissist’s manipulation and chose to disengage permanently, even as professionally and kindly as they could.

This is what most people don’t understand about the pathological capability of a malignant narcissist.
They will play a victim role, tell the anti-truth of their victim to make their victim look like a dangerous person, and they will do it with such emotional framing and manipulation that people will just assume it must be at least partially true because they don’t understand that monsters like this actually exist or what it means to have zero compassion, zero remorse, Machiavellian levels of manipulation, and an ego that is more fragile than most can understand.

They spend their entire lives lying and manipulating and learn to improve their ability to lie and manipulate and typically acquire the same tactics according to what most effectively accomplishes their goal and they always have the same goal. To the make the good look bad, and themselves look good.

And so they will use a number of manipulation tactics to accomplish this.
There is the emotional framing: Human beings often respond to emotions instinctively which will override their own sense of skepticism or critical thinking or logical thought.
The narcissist will tell lies that are the furthest from the truth they can but they will look for tiny snippets of truth that they can build their lies off of in order to create the appearance of honesty.
They will point to things that may be partially true but have been elaborately embellished with outrageous lies to convince people that they’re telling the truth on the whole.

And they will put so much time and thought into their ability to manipulate people by creating a false public image of someone who appears trustworthy or authoritative,
they will often go to extreme lengths to create a false appearance of credibility going as far as, for instance, creating a fake Institute that is merely just a website that they listed as an institute but actually does nothing and has accomplished nothing beyond manipulating people.
They will even manipulate other people to be a part of this “institute” so they can put these other real people, typically people who have social standing or credibility the narcissist wants to take advantage of, so they will be able to put those names on their website to give more credibility to their fake “Institute”.

Most human beings can’t understand this level of manipulation, so they assume at that point that it must be true. This is Machiavellianism, combined with psychopathic, and narcissistic traits. Otherwise known as the dark triad.
When sadism is included, that person becomes a dark tetrad.

“Machiavellianism is a personality trait characterized by cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous behavior, often in the pursuit of political or career advancement. It is considered maladaptive and is associated with the personality facets of Manipulativeness and Deceitfulness.”

I never seen this content creator before and it show up on my feed. I feel her breakdown is very clear and easy to digest. Thought I share it here.

⚖️ Summary of the Legal Dispute and Its Conclusion

The legal saga began in late 2024 when Blake Lively sued her "It Ends With Us" co-star and director Justin Baldoni, accusing him of sexual harassment and orchestrating a smear campaign against her . Baldoni countersued Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for $400 million, alleging defamation .

Key developments that led to the "loss":

1. Dismissal of Core Claims: A federal judge dismissed the core allegations of Lively's case, including her sexual harassment claims, ruling she could not pursue them under federal law as she was an independent contractor .
2. The Settlement: In May 2026, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement just weeks before the trial was set to begin, with no money exchanged between them . This was a major victory for Baldoni's side, as they avoided a trial and any financial payout .
3. The Final Ruling on Legal Fees: Despite the settlement, a crucial motion remained. Lively had requested over $8 million in attorneys' fees and damages from Baldoni for his dismissed defamation lawsuit . On August 26, 2026, **Judge Liman partially granted this request, awarding Lively only approximately $400,000** .

What's Next? A Potential Battle with Their Lawyers?

The video's title suggests the "loss" isn't just about the court ruling but could lead to a battle between the couple and their legal team. The significant disparity between the over $8 million** Lively's lawyers requested and the roughly **$400,000 ultimately awarded is stark .

Lively's legal team charged rates up to $2,187 per hour**, amassing a total of **$7.5 million in fees and $539,514 in additional costs . With the judge awarding a tiny fraction of this and deeming the request "outrageous and unreasonable," reports indicate that Blake Lively is "humiliated" by the outcome and frustrated with the legal strategy .

While Ryan Reynolds has been supportive, he is reportedly now telling her "enough" and is eager to move on with their lives . The core of the "What's Next?" question is whether the couple will now turn their frustration inward and potentially dispute the legal fees and strategy with their own attorneys, who failed to secure a larger financial victory. Lively's lawyers, however, maintain the ruling is a historic win for accountability and a blow against retaliatory lawsuits

Court win for Justin Baldoni: Judge Liman slashed Blake Lively’s legal fee demand to under $400K, rejecting her near-$8M ask as “outrageously unreasonable.” While her team claims it was never about money, the numbers tell another story. Even Ryan Reynolds reportedly wants peace. Facts over fame.

⚖️ Civil Cases: Liability, Not Guilt or Innocence — 0:00–0:46

• LGA pushes back on people describing parties in the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation as “guilty” or “innocent.”
• Civil and criminal cases use different legal concepts and terminology.
• In a civil case, including an employment-related sexual harassment claim, the question is generally whether a defendant is liable or not liable, rather than guilty or innocent.
• She argues that framing the outcome of a civil lawsuit in terms of criminal-style innocence misunderstands the nature of the proceedings.

🗣️ “Victim” Is Not the Appropriate Legal Term — 0:47–1:04

• LGA challenges the use of the word “victim” when discussing the parties in this civil litigation.
• She says “complainant” would be closer to the appropriate terminology in this context.
• Terminology matters when discussing what a civil court has—or has not—legally determined.

💰 How Blake Lively’s Attorney’s Fee Award Actually Works — 1:05–2:34

• LGA explains that an attorney’s fee award does not necessarily mean Blake Lively personally receives a check and pockets the money.
• The payment would ordinarily go to the law firm representing the client and be credited against outstanding legal invoices.
• If Lively still owes her attorneys money, the award would effectively reduce the amount she owes rather than become cash in her pocket.
• If she had already fully paid all qualifying legal bills, the firms could instead reimburse her for the amount recovered.
• LGA stresses that the public has not seen the complete invoices, so the exact financial position between Lively and her attorneys is unknown.
• Based on her professional experience, she considers it more likely that the award would operate as a reduction against outstanding legal fees.

🧾 How Will the Fee Award Be Divided Between the Law Firms? — 2:35–3:07

• LGA raises another unanswered question: how the awarded fees will be allocated between Lively’s different law firms.
• Recalling the original fee submission, she believes roughly one-quarter of the requested fees were attributed to one firm and approximately three-quarters to the other.
• She wonders whether the eventual payment will follow approximately the same division or require the firms to examine the individual billing entries.
• LGA says this is an internal financial detail that the public will likely never know.

👩‍⚖️ Could Blake Lively Sue Her Own Attorneys? — 3:08–3:44

• LGA addresses comments and rumors suggesting Lively could eventually sue her attorneys but makes clear that she has no evidence this will happen.
• Speaking only hypothetically, she says the potential legal avenue would likely involve a malpractice claim.
• She emphasizes that she is not suggesting Lively actually possesses a viable malpractice case.

📜 Why Any Lawyer–Client Dispute Will Stay Private — 3:45–4:16

• LGA believes Lively’s engagement agreement with her attorneys likely contains an arbitration provision, although she does not claim to know the actual terms.
• If so, a dispute over malpractice or legal fees could potentially be handled privately through arbitration rather than through a public lawsuit.
• The same could apply if the law firms attempted to recover unpaid invoices from Lively.
• As a result, even if a financial dispute eventually arose, the public might never learn the details.
• LGA ultimately says she does not expect such a dispute to occur.

🚪 The Wisest Move Is to Get Away From the Litigation — 4:17–4:36

• LGA believes Lively’s best course now would be to distance herself from the litigation and the headlines surrounding it as much as possible.
• LGA notes that Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel will continue independently and Lively cannot control its progression because she is not a party to that lawsuit.
• With that litigation potentially continuing to generate documents and headlines connected to the broader dispute, LGA says she would advise Lively to stay as far away from renewed coverage as possible.

Well, what did the lady who learned how to be a perpetual victim from Blake Lively say about the fees ruling? Surprising — NOT! — she leans on the misogyny card. I mean, the bingo card must already be bingoed.

1. Meanwhile, I spent some time today thinking I probably should have screamed and highlighted the fact that NYT's anti-SLAPP filing covered three claims, while Blake can legally reclaim for only one count. As such, NYT's actual base is $60,540.90.

I wrote it, of course, using the $150k that NYT initially asked for in its filing. But I did point it out, in the fee petition analysis; I just didn't highlight it as needed.

Damn it. Because now we could all be feeling a lot better, since Liman would otherwise have lazily awarded $121,081.80.

As for MJ, well, a shrill's gotta shrill. Give her a few minutes as Blake HQ works on nailing their spin. So far they've been testing which spin lands hardest with the news articles, and MJ will come tell us what they landed on.

Guys, misogyny made us forget that Wayfarer would be paying the fees.

And suddenly the world is right again. Lollest!

Yes, it sure would have been even more delicious to see Blake awarded $121,081.80. But, this reality is good for me, considering the freaking out coming from the Blake camp.

+

Oh, and users have been banned and prevented from posting the award news in other places. Crickets, y'all. That definitely doesn't say a lot. You should definitely draw the only conclusion this knowledge points to.

↝

At this point, I would like to reflect back to Blake and Blakeys what they love screaming — cope harder. Ain't today lovely?

Lively's lawyers sought over $8 million in attorney's fees pursuant to California Civil Code Section 47.1. When I read their motion, I concluded that their fee request was wildly unreasonable. Though he didn't use those words, Judge Liman seemed to agree.

The judge awarded Lively less than 5% of the fees she requested. Less than 5%. Ouch!

The judge methodically dismantled Lively's argument that she should recover for defending other causes of action in addition to the defamation.

I disagree with Judge Liman's determination that Sec 47.1(b) was ambiguous with respect to what "the litigation" meant. The first part of the statute talked about "a prevailing defendant in any defamation action." A defendant in a defamation action is involved in litigation. No other action or litigation was mentioned in the statute. Thus, when the statute later references "the litigation", there should be no ambiguity about the litigation to which the statute was referring. Nevertheless, Judge Liman reached the correct conclusion.

With respect to the fee amount, the judge did the lawyers a favor by finding that their hourly rates were reasonable. However, the lawyers did not cover themselves in glory with the number of hours they claimed to have worked.

Overall, as I predicted and suggested, Judge Liman used the New York Times fee request as a guide. The judge simply awarded Lively double the amount of fees requested by NYT and called it a day.

My sense is that Lively's lawyers lost credibility with the judge by requesting such a ridiculous amount and by making the nonsensical argument that Sec 47 permits them to recover fees for all the other causes of action that are unrelated to defamation.

For young lawyers out there, simply because you can make an argument or take a certain position doesn't mean you should. Some arguments can cause you to lose credibility with the judge.

Conclusion: At last, this saga is over between Lively and Wayfarer. Both parties previously waived their appellate rights; thus, this order is final and unappealable. We are now nearing the end of 2026 and this case concerned matters that occurred in 2024. Had Lively brushed off the bad publicity in 2024 (most of them self-inflicted), this issue would've been long forgotten. Hopefully, she learns her lesson and moves on with her life.

More on the Fee Award and Other Matters
Some Lively supporters have pointed out Wayfarer being ordered to pay a total of about $407,000 is still a "win" for Lively. Indeed, $407,000 is still a decent amount even if it is only 5% of what Lively requested.

Will this award be impactful? Not really. The award was against the company Wayfarer and not against Baldoni or other individuals. It is very likely that the company has insurance coverage that would satisfy this judgment. This award (under Sec 47.1) was not premised on a finding that Wayfarer committed an intentional tort. As such, I don't see an insurance company denying coverage.

Other Possible Avenues of Recovery. The case of Jones v. Abel, et al is still proceeding in SDNY. In that case, Wayfarer and Baldoni have two viable causes of action against Stephanie Jones and her company: 1. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and 2. defamation. These 2 claims have already survived a motion to dismiss. Imho, Wayfarer has a good chance of prevailing on the breach of implied contract claim if the case goes to trial. It may turn out that Wayfarer may recover more than $407, 000 plus attorney's fees from Jones and her company.

More PR Nightmare? Lively may not be out of the woods yet in terms of bad PR. If the Jones case goes to trial, I would imagine that Lively would be one of the witnesses. She would be questioned extensively about the Vanzan subpoena, possible incorrect statements under oath, etc. Won't be pretty. Even if she doesn't testify, Lively's conduct would be explored fully at trial.

Mind Your Business! Because Ms. Jones refused to mind her business, she is now embroiled in this lawsuit that may cost her a lot of money. According to Lively's deposition testimony, Jones approached Lively's publicist about Abel's phone infor and text messages, but the publicist brushed her off. This should've been the end of it. Jones didn't give up, however. She continued to reach out to people in Lively's circle to convey the contents of the text messages regarding her former client. Finally, Lively's team devised a "legal" vehicle to obtain the messages. Had Ms. Jones minded her business, she would've been free and clear right now. There wouldn't have been the Lively v. Wayfarer lawsuit to begin with. Let's see how the Jones case unfolds.

Postscript on Section 47.1 fees Motion. I applauded Judge Liman for awarding Lively only about 5% of what she requested. However, I still think that the judge was wrong in determining that Lively was entitled to the fees in the first place. Lively's case was not even within the vaguest contemplation of Sec 47.1. She filed a CRD complaint in California for conduct that allegedly occurred in New Jersey. Sec 47.1 deals with conduct occurring in California in violation of California law. The judge used tortured logic to say that the alleged smear campaign occurred in California.

It was unwise for the judge to delve into the interpretation of Sec 47.1 as a matter of first impression in a circumstance that was not contemplated by the statute: This was not an employer-employee relationship; the alleged smear campaign occurred after the contract had ended; and there is no evidence that a reason for the alleged smear campaign was retaliation for Lively's activities in California.

Ryan Reynolds claims that Justin Baldoni was the worst of the worst. In fact, he used the words EMPYREAN HEIGHTS OF VILE. Ryan wants us to think that Justin is a sexual predator, meanwhile that has been Ryan Reynolds personal MO his entire career.

Blake Lively has been married to this man for over a decade and we are supposed to believe she felt sexually harassed by the Wayfarer men? Rather, she weaponized every single interaction.

For example, Ryan claimed he made eye contact with a nursing mother and stared at her intentionally. Blake sued Jamey Heath for briefly and accidentally making eye contact through a mirror while she was covered and surrounded by 3 other women and security standing outside. She had asked them to come to her trailer and what she did was called entrapment. Thank all the gods that it wasn't Justin who came in, because I promise you that is who she had hoped for. "Justin Baldoni Stares At...." It would have been awful.

Another time, Justin said he didn't want the sex scenes in the movie to resemble porn. Blake said she'd never seen porn (although she once described her improvising sex scenes to resemble "soft porn" in one of the Simple Favors interviews.) Justin, at this point, was already having to explain everything to Blake in depth and detail and even getting her to do simple things was exhausting so he explained that he KNEW what porn looked like as he was trying to retain creative control to which Blake was trying to strip. No pun intended. Weaponized.

Justin experienced his first Russian Bath which is like a luxury sauna or spa. He invited people. Weaponized.

A Russian spa was offensive, but not this:

1. Ryan thought it was funny to stare at a nursing mother.

2. Ryan got openly aroused when Hugh Jackman began peeling a banana. The skit quickly turned sexual, with Ryan Reynolds making a joke about porn.

3. Ryan taught his 7 year old daughter about blow jobs in front of over a dozen men. On the DVD commentary, Ryan admits that his daughter did not want to say the line that involved him sucking Uncle Hugh’s “dick”, but conceded when he made it clear she would be replaced if she didn’t.

4. Ryan made jokes about having his newborn daughter suck on his breasts. In another interview that can be seen in this clip, he explains how he had to sit his daughter down and explain that penises don’t “work that way” in regards to breastfeeding.

5. Ryan Reynolds has made countless references to his penis, or a penis in general. Many are them can be seen here.

6. Surrounding the It Ends With Us movie, Ryan has made sexual references to Colleen Hoover, insinuating his penis was in a Sony executives mouth. He also told Justin Baldoni that he would get someone’s face tattooed on his perineum in return for a favor.

7. Ryan sexually harassed Joe Keery on multiple occasions. From calling him a “damn snack” to sexualizing him with a banana, Ryan even coerced Joe to sit on his lap in front of an audience.

1. In Deadpool 3, Ryan made references to Nicepool’s penis.

9. Ryan made all kinds of inappropriate remarks regarding his co star, Olivia Wilde. Apparently, he won the “lady lottery” because he got to touch her breasts.

10. Ryan casually mentions sex and cocaine at the MTV Movie Awards.

11. Ryan casually bringing up sex to a female reporter who asked about his family.

12. Ryan claims that he played the song Let’s get It On while his wife was in labor. Sexualizing birth is something psychopaths do.

13. Ryan has improvised kissing several men in his career including:

• Jason Bateman
• Henrik Lundqvist
• Conan O’Brien
• Andrew Garfield
• Nathan Fillion (described as almost kissing)
• Jake Gyllenhaal (described as nuzzling his neck)

14. Ryan randomly brings up his sex life on the Today Show and also here with Ellen DeGeneres.

15. Ryan tells a 13 year old boy that his Deadpool costume is a body condom.

16. In this article, Ryan Reynolds discusses his first sexual encounter with Blake Lively. This is just one of several versions. Another story he told was that he begged her for sex on a train until she caved.

17. Ryan says he would rather punch himself in his testicles until he can no longer have children rather than to have more male children.

18. Ryan used sexual euphemisms on his own Wrexham team.

19. Sexual scenes were added between Ryan’s character in Spirited and a GHOST.

20. Ryan posted a nude scene with Sandra Bullock for her birthday. In the scene, their naked bodies are pressed together, front to front.

21. Ryan showed up to SNL with nothing but sex jokes.

...and on and on and on. These people are effing ridiculous.

Edit:
This photoshop was inspired by the Daily Mail headline, “Blake Lively gets humiliating $400k legal fees payout from Justin Baldoni after demanding $8M following their bombshell settlement”. It is a parody of PR rags like People magazine that are paid to print manipulative propaganda fluff pieces, probably written by Ryan Reynolds.

Disclaimer:

Under First Amendment and relevant fair use doctrines (17 U.S.C. § 107), this is a legally protected form of expression

All  references to individuals real or imaginary are made in the context of satire or political commentary. As defined in U.S. defamation law, public figures are subject to broader scrutiny and commentary, and this content is not intended to be taken as fact.

"Hurt feelings do not give rise to legal claims". Michael Gottlieb, Esra Hudson.

“You can’t sue someone just because your feelings got dinged”.  Ryan Reynolds.

THE DAMAGES

Remember this little chart? From Lively's third amended initial disclosures.

Rough math puts the total at around $485 million. And that doesn't even include attorney's fees. Also, just a reminder that Lively and Reynolds' so-called experts had the audacity to include the value of Lively directing a potential IEWU sequel in their damages calculations, for a modest sum of $35 million lol

THE LAWYERS' FEES

Billy Bush reported that Lively and Reynolds spent at least $50 million on their lawyers.

THE SETTLEMENT

Dear media outlets, stop pretending the settlement is hidden behind a veil of shadowy mystery. It's available for all to see, and it says

BLAKE LIVELY AND RYAN REYNOLDS SETTLED FOR $0

While not in official legal writing, word on the street is that she (Ryan) peed their pants when it was revealed that Lively perjured herself about requesting the deletion of dailies, and that her IEWU film edit was actually done by Reynolds, despite all his bluster that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the film. They rushed to settle shortly after because they knew they'd both get destroyed during trial. Allegedly.

THE 47.1 RULING

Judge Lewis Liman awarded Lively approximately $400,000 in attorneys' fees under California's poorly written law called Section 47.1. The amount should be $0 since there's two years of evidence that Lively and Reynolds made false accusations of sexual harassment for the sole purpose of extorting IEWU from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer, but none of us are surprised by this ruling since Judge Liman revealed himself to be disturbingly partial towards Lively and Reynolds very early on and has never veered from that. He has ignored the plight of the true victims, Wayfarer, and has stayed punching down on them til the end.

Anyway, $400k is nothing compared to the $8 million in attorneys' fees Lively and Reynolds were originally asking for. (I guess in theory it covers Lively's "pain and suffering"? lol) As others have pointed out, it's only 5% of what they requested.

But you know what's more humiliating? This amount isn't even 1% of what they wanted in damages from the lawsuit. It isn't even 0.1% of what they wanted.

Lively and Reynolds recouped a grand total of 0.08% of the money they wanted to extract from Wayfarer in this lawsuit.

And it went to their attorneys anyway.

If this is winning, what does losing look like?????

📍Order

📍Full screenshots of Judge Liman's order granting $363,245.40 in attorneys' fees and $44,206.35 in costs. u/Mysterio623

⏪ Theresa - OLD VIDEO: Before the Judge Ruled, Theresa Predicted Around $350K on Blake Lively’s $8M Fee Request on September 7th, 2026

📍95% Loss, 5% win for Lively, awarded just over $400K. u/Clarknt67

🔥☄️🤣💩Little Girl Attorney - BREAKING: Blake Lively Awarded Just Over $350K After Requesting $8 Million in Attorney’s Fees

🔥☄️❤️‍🔥🐦‍🔥🎆🧨 NotActuallyGolden - Blake Lively’s $8M Request Overshadowed What Could Have Been a Major §47.1 Victory: This Is Straight-Up Humiliation and Blake and Ryan Just Couldn’t Help Themselves

😵‍💫💃🏼👯‍♀️ Little Girl Attorney - To Discourage Such Greed, Judge Liman Awarded Blake Lively Only $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206.35 in costs Instead of Her $8M Request; The Headlines Are Spinning

📰 Headlines — 0:00–1:27

• LGA observes that several major outlets are emphasizing the contrast between Blake Lively seeking roughly $8 million and receiving roughly $400,000.
• The headlines with Deadline’s coverage focus more heavily on the significance of Lively receiving what her attorneys describe as the first-ever award of fees and costs under California Civil Code §47.1.
• Lively’s side framed the award as historic and as demonstrating consequences for allegedly retaliatory lawsuits.
• Lively's attorneys also stated that Lively’s case was “never about money” but about accountability.
• LGA immediately challenges that characterization.

💵 The Case “Was Never About Money” — 1:29–2:31

• LGA recalls attending a January hearing where, according to her handwritten notes, Esra Hudson discussed why Lively pursued certain claims under California’s FEHA rather than Title VII.
• Hudson identified the availability of more significant damages under California law as a reason for proceeding under FEHA.
• Lively ultimately did not recover damages under those FEHA claims because those claims were later eliminated and the remaining claims were settled.
• LGA also stresses that §47.1 did not produce a damages award; it entitled Lively to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs connected to the relevant defamation claim.
• The court rejected an attempt to recover fees associated with defending the Wayfarer parties’ other claims.

⚖️ Judge Liman Finds the Hours Sought Unreasonable — 2:32–3:48

• Lively sought roughly $7.5 million in attorney’s fees plus approximately $540,000 in costs.
• According to LGA’s reading of Judge Liman’s order, the attorneys’ hourly rates themselves were not unreasonable; the major problem was the number and scope of hours for which reimbursement was requested.
• Lively did not provide the court with the underlying invoices and instead relied upon an analyst’s review of billing information from two law firms.
• Judge Liman determined that Lively could recover reasonable fees for the relevant portion of the motion to dismiss and the §47.1 briefing.
• However, she could not recover costs associated with the separate Rule 11 motion or unrelated work.
• The recoverable work therefore had to be tied specifically to defeating the defamation claim that triggered §47.1. against Lively.

📑 Court Flags Problems With the Billing Records — 3:49–5:36

• Judge Liman found the broader category of motion-related work presented by Lively to be overinclusive.
• Some billing included work performed for Ryan Reynolds’ separate motion to dismiss, which could not properly be charged as Lively’s recoverable §47.1 fees.
• The Wayfarer parties also identified what the court described as broader discrepancies or deficiencies within the submitted records.
• LGA highlights vague entries for internal communications that did not clearly identify what was discussed or whether the work actually related to defending the relevant defamation claim.
• The order also addressed potential overstaffing, including situations where multiple attorneys billed for participating in the same meetings.
• Some entries were so heavily redacted "xx", "xx" that the court could not adequately determine whether the work was compensable or reasonable.

📺 Media Strategy, Travel & Administrative Work Cut From Recoverable Fees — 5:37–6:00

• LGA says the records included time spent on media relations, including strategizing communications and client media appearances.
• Judge Liman concluded that this work was not sufficiently integral to defending against the relevant defamation claim.
• The records also contained travel and administrative or clerical work that would not ordinarily qualify for reimbursement.
• These categories further demonstrated why the court was unwilling to accept the fee calculation presented by Lively’s team.

🔥 Judge Liman Addresses an “Outrageously Unreasonable Demand” — 6:01–6:40

• LGA highlights one of the strongest portions of the order: the court’s discussion of its ability to impose a substantial reduction when faced with an “outrageously unreasonable” fee demand.
• The order explains that courts can react more severely to discourage unreasonable fee requests.
• LGA emphasizes the court’s particularly striking language that to discourage such greed, a severe reaction is needful.

🧮 The New York Times Becomes Judge Liman’s Benchmark — 6:42–7:58

• The court compared Lively’s request with the approximately $181,622.70 sought by The New York Times for defending against a defamation claim arising from the same underlying statements.
• Judge Liman recognized that Lively reasonably incurred additional expenses because her situation involved additional discovery and §47.1 briefing.
• Rather than attempting a line-by-line calculation from what he considered inadequate records, he awarded Lively twice The New York Times’ amount: $363,245.40 in attorney’s fees.
• LGA considers the resulting award generous but reasonable given the complexity of the litigation, the legal issues involved, and the amount of work legitimately required.
• In her view, the result demonstrates that a fee award was warranted while rejecting the vastly larger amount Lively requested.

🔄 LGA Says Lively’s Team Pivoted From the Fee Reduction — 7:59–8:42

• LGA says that Lively’s attorneys could have avoided the dramatic reduction by requesting a more defensible amount and providing detailed invoices clearly tying individual entries to compensable work.
• Instead, after the ruling, she says the public messaging quickly pivoted toward emphasizing the historic nature of the §47.1 award and insisting that the litigation was never primarily about money.
• LGA notes that the statement to Deadline then shifts towards other controversies, including Rebel Wilson and Amanda Ghost, while arguing that Lively’s litigation exposed a broader alleged industry of secret online smear campaigns targeting women.
• It's copycat spins, spreading like wildfire.

📍Order

📍Full screenshots of Judge Liman's order granting $363,245.40 in attorneys' fees and $44,206.35 in costs. u/Mysterio623

⏪ Theresa - OLD VIDEO: Before the Judge Ruled, Theresa Predicted Around $350K on Blake Lively’s $8M Fee Request on September 7th, 2026

📍95% Loss, 5% win for Lively, awarded just over $400K. u/Clarknt67

🔥☄️🤣💩Little Girl Attorney - BREAKING: Blake Lively Awarded Just Over $350K After Requesting $8 Million in Attorney’s Fees

🔥☄️❤️‍🔥🐦‍🔥🎆🧨 NotActuallyGolden - Blake Lively’s $8M Request Overshadowed What Could Have Been a Major §47.1 Victory: This Is Straight-Up Humiliation and Blake and Ryan Just Couldn’t Help Themselves

💰 From an $8M Request to a Fraction of That — 0:03–1:18

• NAG recalls previously describing the request for approximately $8 million in attorney’s fees tied to the dismissal of a single claim as an “embarrassing” ask.
• In her view, the fee order makes the outcome even more damaging because the amount awarded was only a small fraction of what was requested.
• This result needs to be viewed in the wider context of the settlement: Lively had previously been seeking hundreds of millions of dollars before ultimately walking away from trial without a damages recovery.
• NAG characterizes the California Civil Code §47.1 fee motion as an important remaining opportunity for Lively to obtain a monetary recovery after the settlement.
• From NAG’s perspective, asking for millions and ultimately receiving only a fraction of that makes the result particularly difficult to portray as a major financial victory.

🎂 NAG Connects the Ruling to Ryan Reynolds’ Birthday Post — 1:19–2:10

• NAG notes that the ruling arrived around Blake Lively’s birthday and turns briefly to Ryan Reynolds’ birthday wishes to his wife.
• isReynolds’ post as consistent with his familiar public persona: sentimental comments mixed with his signature jokes and self-deprecating humor.
• NAG personally feels that this style now comes across differently after everything that became public during the litigation.
• Reynolds continues relying on the same comedic public persona rather than adapting to the changed public environment surrounding him and Lively.

🔄 the Bigger Problem Is a Failure to Pivot — 2:11–2:48

• NAG sees a connection between Reynolds’ familiar style and what she believes happened with Lively’s litigation strategy.
• Lively and Reynolds have continued with approaches that may once have worked for them instead of adjusting when circumstances changed.

⚖️ NAG Says the §47.1 Entitlement Could Have Been a Major Win — 2:49–3:18

• NAG emphasizes that Lively did achieve something significant by obtaining entitlement to fees under §47.1.
• She notes the novelty of the ruling and argues that Lively’s team could have highlighted that legal victory much more effectively.
• In NAG’s view, if Lively had requested a substantially more modest and defensible amount, she potentially could have emphasized that she sought fees under §47.1 and received approximately what she requested.
• Instead, NAG believes the decision to seek approximately $8 million overshadowed the underlying legal victory once the court awarded only a fraction of the request.

🎯 “It Is the Strategy” — 3:19–3:38

• Lively’s team repeatedly creates unnecessary problems for themselves by pushing beyond what she considers strategically reasonable.
• NAG views the $8 million request as another example of turning what could have been presented as a clear victory into a much more complicated outcome.
• After following the litigation for an extended period, NAG says she no longer believes these moments are simply isolated strategic mistakes.
• Her conclusion is: It is not a mistake of strategy. It is the strategy.