The It Ends With Us authorized battle continues as star Blake Full of life has requested a decide to dismiss a countersuit filed by her co-star Justin Baldoni, calling his claims “vengeful and rambling,” after she filed a lawsuit in opposition to him for sexual harassment and retaliation.
On Thursday, Full of life’s attorneys wrote in papers filed in Manhattan federal court docket that Baldoni and his manufacturing firm’s claims they have been defamed have been a “profound abuse of the authorized course of.”
“The regulation prohibits weaponizing defamation lawsuits, like this one, to retaliate in opposition to people who’ve filed authorized claims or have publicly spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation,” the attorneys mentioned.
“The suitable to hunt authorized redress and the best of the press to report on it are sacred rules which might be protected by a number of privileges, together with the litigation and honest report privileges, that are absolute,” they added.
Full of life’s authorized group additionally referred to Baldoni’s lawsuit as a part of a “sinister marketing campaign to bury and destroy” her for talking out about sexual harassment in opposition to him.
Her attorneys invoked a California regulation that protects sexual harassment accusers, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed, in response to defamation lawsuits introduced on through the #MeToo motion. Full of life’s attorneys mentioned the regulation entitles her to say authorized charges and damages from Baldoni as soon as his swimsuit is thrown out.
“In different phrases, in an epic self-own, the Wayfarer Events have created extra legal responsibility for themselves by their malicious efforts to sue Ms. Full of life ‘into oblivion,’” the movement states.
Full of life sought unspecified damages when she sued Baldoni in late December for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation. He countersued for $400 million, accusing Full of life and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, of defamation and extortion.
In a press release on Thursday, Full of life’s attorneys, Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, mentioned Full of life “suffered drastically” by talking up concerning the alleged harassment.
“The painful actuality is that Ms. Full of life is just not alone in being sued for defamation after talking up about being sexually harassed at work,” Full of life’s attorneys mentioned. “Whereas Ms. Full of life has suffered drastically by talking up and pursuing authorized claims, it’s important for different folks to know that they’ve protections and that there’s a particular regulation that expressly protects them from being silenced or financially ruined by a defamation lawsuit as a result of that they had the braveness to talk up.”
Baldoni’s attorneys have been fast to answer Full of life’s try to dismiss his lawsuit in opposition to her, referring to her actions as “abhorrent.”
Get breaking Nationwide information
For information impacting Canada and all over the world, join breaking information alerts delivered on to you after they occur.
“Ms. Full of life’s latest movement to dismiss herself from the self-concocted catastrophe she initiated is likely one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our authorized system,” Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, mentioned in a press release.
“Stringent guidelines are put into place to guard the harmless and permit people to rightfully defend themselves. Legal guidelines are usually not meant to be twisted and curated by privileged elites to suit their very own private agenda,” Freedman added.
Freedman mentioned they may “proceed to carry Ms. Full of life accountable for her actions of pure malice, which embody falsely accusing my shoppers of harassment and retaliation.”
“Her fantastical claims will likely be swiftly debunked as discovery strikes ahead, simply disproved with precise, evidentiary proof,” Freedman mentioned.
Full of life’s newest movement comes days after attorneys for Reynolds filed papers within the countersuit requesting to be dismissed from Baldoni’s $400 million civil extortion and defamation criticism.
Baldoni was dropped by his company, WME, which additionally represents Full of life. His swimsuit alleges that Reynolds was accountable for this after he approached a WME government on the Deadpool & Wolverine premiere and “expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, suggesting the company was working with a ‘sexual predator.’”
“The whole thing of plaintiffs’ defamation declare seems to be primarily based on two occasions that Mr. Reynolds allegedly known as Mr. Baldoni a ‘predator,’” the submitting learn. (World Information has not independently reviewed the paperwork.)
“However, the FAC alleges no believable information that counsel Mr. Reynolds didn’t imagine this remark to be true; as an alternative, the related FAC allegations counsel that Mr. Reynolds genuinely, maybe passionately, believes that Mr. Baldoni’s conduct is reflective of a ‘predator,’” the submitting added.
Reynolds’ authorized group questioned the actor’s relevance to the swimsuit past his function as “a supportive partner who has witnessed firsthand the emotional, reputational and monetary devastation Ms. Full of life has suffered.”
Freedman responded to Reynolds’ submitting in a press release supplied to CNN. “After lighting a match, Mr. Reynolds now seeks to run from the flames. It gained’t work,” Freedman mentioned.
“Mr. Reynolds was a key participant within the scheme, defaming Justin round Hollywood, strong-arming WME into dropping Justin as a consumer, and making an attempt to destroy Justin’s profession nevertheless attainable,” the assertion mentioned.
“His fingerprints have been throughout this smear marketing campaign in opposition to Justin and the Wayfarer group since day one. Mr. Reynolds now makes an attempt to scale back plainly cognizable claims to ‘damage emotions,’ sending a transparent message that bullying is appropriate,” Freedman continued.
“Mr. Reynolds can seem on as many sketch exhibits as he desires and feebly attempt to make gentle of his present scenario, however we is not going to cease till he’s held accountable for his actions,” the assertion added, seemingly referencing Reynolds’ look on the fiftieth anniversary particular of Saturday Night time Dwell in February.
Baldoni sued his co-star Full of life, 37, and Reynolds, 48, for defamation in January. That lawsuit got here the identical day that Baldoni sued the New York Occasions for libel, alleging the paper labored with Full of life to smear him.
Because the authorized battle started, Baldoni’s authorized group made textual content messages from Full of life and Reynolds public on a web site, titled The Lawsuit Data, created to assist defend himself.
On the web site, printed in early February, Baldoni, 41, additionally shared an amended criticism in his case in opposition to Full of life, Reynolds, Full of life’s PR agency and the New York Occasions, in addition to a 168-page doc known as, “Timeline of related occasions,” associated to the case and the manufacturing of the movie.
The timeline consists of emails and textual content messages that have been allegedly despatched main as much as and through the film’s filming.
Full of life and Baldoni’s case headed to court docket on Feb. 3, because the Gossip Lady actor’s authorized group started to debate a possible gag order.
A U.S. decide reminded attorneys for Baldoni and Full of life to not publicly focus on the actors’ competing civil lawsuits.
At a listening to in Manhattan federal court docket, Gottlieb, Full of life’s lawyer, complained to Decide Lewis Liman that Freedman, Baldoni’s lawyer, violated skilled ethics guidelines for attorneys by accusing Full of life of “bullying.”
“It’s very arduous to un-ring the bell,” Gottlieb mentioned, arguing that such statements might taint the jury pool for the scheduled March 9, 2026 trial.
Freedman prompt that his feedback to Individuals journal and in a podcast look have been a response to the Dec. 21, 2024 New York Occasions article that “fully devastated” Baldoni.
“This has not been a one-way road,” he mentioned.
Liman adopted a New York state rule barring most out-of-court statements that might have an effect on a case’s consequence, besides for shielding a consumer from prejudicial antagonistic publicity.
The decide might sanction attorneys for violations. Neither Gottlieb nor Freedman objected.
— With information from The Related Press
