Judge Throws Out 10 of Blake Lively’s 13 Claims Against Justin Baldoni

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman delivered a devastating blow to Blake Lively’s sexual harassment case against Justin Baldoni. Out of 13 claims, 10 were dismissed. The allegations that fueled months of headlines, a New York Times exposé, and a very public war of attrition have been gutted at the summary judgment stage.

Understand what actually happened in that courtroom. No technicality saved Baldoni. No administrative slip derailed Lively’s filing. The judge examined her claims and found them legally unfit to proceed. The judge looked at Lively’s core claims, harassment, defamation, conspiracy, failure to investigate, and found that, as a matter of law, they could not proceed.

The only claims surviving? Two retaliation-related allegations and a breach of contract claim. Three out of thirteen. And even those will face trial on May 18 with a significantly narrowed scope.

Why Blake Lively Never Signed Her Own Downfall

The central issue that sank the harassment claims was not whether Baldoni behaved badly on set. The judge did not rule on the truth of the harassment allegations themselves. What he ruled on was whether Lively had the legal standing to bring those claims under the laws she invoked. She did not.

Judge Liman determined that Lively was not an employee of “It Ends With Us.” She was, legally speaking, an independent contractor. She never signed a formal employment contract. And because she structured her involvement as a producer and creative force, taking over production elements, exerting significant control, she could not later claim the protections afforded to employees under California law or federal Title VII.

Why California Law Did Not Carry the Day

Another significant challenge in Lively’s legal strategy involved jurisdiction. Her team sought to apply California’s stricter labor and harassment laws to conduct that allegedly occurred in New Jersey. Judge Liman was not persuaded by this approach.

The jurisdictional question was always going to be difficult. California’s labor laws offer strong protections, but they are designed to apply to conduct that takes place within the state. According to the filings, the alleged incidents did not occur there. They occurred in New Jersey. Legal frameworks cannot be retroactively imported from a different jurisdiction simply because the statutes are more favorable. The same rules apply to all litigants, regardless of their profile or resources. Lively’s team attempted to argue for California law in a case centered on events in New Jersey. The judge declined to accept that framing.

This distinction matters because California’s Me Too laws are known for being particularly protective of plaintiffs. New Jersey’s laws, while not insubstantial, operate under a different standard. The attempt to invoke California protections in a New Jersey-centered case was ultimately unsuccessful.

The surviving retaliation claim includes a FEHA retaliation theory, while the harassment claims under the employment statutes were dismissed. The failure to investigate the claim was also dismissed, as it depended entirely on the existence of a viable harassment claim. Without a harassment claim that could proceed as a matter of law, the duty to investigate did not attach.

The Contract Claim That Survived

Despite the significant narrowing of Blake Lively’s case, one contract claim did survive dismissal. While much of her lawsuit was thrown out, this portion remains, at least in a reduced form.

That survival does not necessarily indicate strength. It simply means the court did not dismiss this particular claim at the summary judgment stage. Lively tied the claim to the Actor Loanout Agreement and the Contract Rider Agreement, which she argued included protections against harassment and retaliation. The judge did not accept the broader interpretation that this represented a sweeping legal victory for her position.

In fact, the ruling substantially cut back the claim. Judge Liman’s opinion notes that formal negotiations led to a final offer letter in May 2023 covering Lively’s acting services, compensation, approval rights, and executive producer credit. However, he also found that her contract claims against Wayfarer were abandoned because her legal team failed to respond to Wayfarer’s argument that it was not a party to those agreements.

The issue was not that no contract existed at all. Rather, the surviving dispute is significantly smaller and less expansive than Lively’s original filing suggested. What remains for trial is a limited question: whether any enforceable contractual protections were actually breached, and by whom.

The Three Remaining Claims Explained

For those keeping score at home, here is what remains of Blake Lively’s $160 million lawsuit:

Claim One: Retaliation. Lively alleges that she complained about on-set conduct and was subsequently punished because of those complaints. The judge found this claim sufficiently supported to proceed, but only against certain business entities, not against Baldoni or producer Jamey Heath as individuals.

Claim Two: Aiding and Abetting Retaliation. This claim alleges that someone, namely, the PR team, helped Baldoni and Wayfarer punish Lively for speaking up. This too survives, but again in narrowed form.

Claim Three: Breach of a Written Retaliation Promise. Lively alleges there was a separate written agreement promising that no one would retaliate against her for speaking up, and that this promise was broken. This claim is still active.

What is notably absent from the surviving claims? Sexual harassment. Defamation. Civil conspiracy. Failure to investigate. The headlines that launched a thousand think pieces have been dismissed as legally insufficient.

Baldoni’s attorney, Jonathan Bach, called the allegations “small potatoes” during an earlier hearing. Judge Liman responded at the time that “a whole bunch of little things can add up to a big thing.” But in his final ruling, the judge made clear that even a bunch of little things cannot add up to a big thing if the plaintiff is standing in the wrong legal doorway.

The Statements: Two Sides, One Ruling

Lively’s attorney, Sigrid McCawley, attempted to frame the dismissal as a technicality rather than a substantive loss. “Sexual harassment isn’t going forward, not because the defendants did nothing wrong, but because the court determined Blake Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee,” McCawley said.

She added, “This case has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set, and that is the case that is going to trial.”

But this is spin. The “devastating retaliation” case going to trial is missing its engine. Without the harassment claims, the retaliation claims are rudderless. Retaliation for what, exactly? Complaints that the judge has now deemed insufficient to support a lawsuit? The logic is strained.

Baldoni’s attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach, were more direct: “We’re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided.”

Translation: The people Lively named as predators have been cleared of the legal claims against them. The individual defendants are out.

What the Judge Did Not Say (But Everyone Noticed)

Judge Liman did not rule that Baldoni is innocent. He did not rule that the alleged harassment never happened. He ruled that Lively cannot sue for it under the laws she chose. That distinction will be lost in the discourse, but it matters.

However, it is also true that a federal judge reviewed the record before him and found 10 of 13 claims could not proceed. That is a near-total collapse of a plaintiff’s case before trial.

The New York Times, which published the explosive exposé of Baldoni’s alleged conduct that launched this saga, now faces uncomfortable questions about how it characterized claims that a judge has since dismissed. The paper’s reporting relied heavily on Lively’s legal filings. Those filings have now been gutted. That is not a good look for journalism or for the sources who fed the story.