Blake Lively It Ends With Us trial moves forward after judge dismissal

Judge dismisses 10 of 13 claims in Blake Lively's lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, allowing retaliation and breach of contract claims to proceed to trial in May.

Objective Facts

In April 2026, the majority of Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni and his associates was dismissed. Out of thirteen claims, only three remain in the case: retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract. Some of the claims, including the ones involving sexual harassment, were nixed due to legal technicalities, such as Lively being considered an independent contractor rather than an employee — a point emphasized by Lively's attorneys following the judge's order. Lively's narrowed set of claims are scheduled for trial on May 18, 2026. As to retaliation, the judge said some evidence might enable a jury to conclude that Baldoni's production company planned not only to damage Lively's reputation but to destroy her career amid fear she'd file a discrimination claim.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Lively's agency WME published a statement supporting her, saying: "In an industry that too often asks women to absorb the damage and stay quiet, Blake Lively chose to stand up for herself, her castmates, and those without the ability to fight back," and highlighted how she "helped expose the devastating harm caused by covert digital takedown campaigns designed to intimidate, discredit, and drown out the truth." Lively's attorney Mike Gottlieb characterized the judge's ruling favorably, stating that the court ruled that Lively "provided evidence to go to trial on her core claims," including that she spoke up about what she believed was sexual harassment and that Baldoni and his production company "crossed the line and took steps that harmed her reputation and career." Gottlieb emphasized that the court dismissed some of Lively's claims due to legal issues "rather than an endorsement of the defendants' conduct." Sigrid McCawley, from Lively's legal team, stated: "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." Left-aligned coverage emphasizes that the dismissal was on technical grounds rather than merit, preserving what they view as the substantive core of Lively's case—the retaliation and digital attacks she endured.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach, Baldoni's attorneys, stated they were "pleased" the judge dismissed the sexual harassment claims and emphasized that "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," adding: "What's left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court." Baldoni's attorney told E! News that Lively's "predictable declaration of victory is false," arguing "This case is about false accusations of sexual harassment and retaliation and a nonexistent smear campaign." Expert commentary aligned with this framing noted that while Baldoni had many claims dismissed, they were "largely dismissed based on technicalities, and not on the merits," and that "His team is doing a good job of spinning the ruling, making it sound like the judge completely exonerated Baldoni over claims of sexual harassment." Right-aligned coverage emphasizes that the dismissal vindicated Baldoni by eliminating the most serious allegations against him personally, characterizing Lively's remaining legal position as significantly weakened. The focus is on the legal victory of removing harassment claims rather than on the judge's findings regarding retaliation.

Deep Dive

The production of the 2024 American film It Ends with Us, starring Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, became the subject of highly publicized disputes and litigation between them concerning allegations of a hostile work environment and smear campaigns. The film, based on Colleen Hoover's 2016 novel, was directed by Baldoni and produced by Baldoni and Lively among others, and was released in August 2024 to commercial success. In her civil complaint, Lively accused Baldoni, who also co-starred in the film, of sexually harassing her during the movie's production and then orchestrating a smear campaign to retaliate against her for speaking up about the alleged mistreatment. The legal significance centers on the retaliation claims going forward: Liman's ruling will be remembered for Lively losing her harassment claims, but the more important story is the retaliation claims that are going to a jury, with any verdict producing a clear lesson for employers that the dismissal of the underlying claim isn't the end of the story. Lively's harassment claims failed on two distinct legal grounds, neither of which turned on a finding that the alleged conduct didn't occur, but rather more technical legal grounds. Despite those findings, the judge said some sexual harassment claims may be put to a jury to support two retaliation claims that survived the ruling, including one against It Ends With Us Movie LLC and Wayfarer Studios, and a third claim that was left intact alleging breach of a contract rider agreement. What unfolds at trial will depend on whether a jury determines that Baldoni's team engaged in retaliatory conduct—hiring crisis PR professionals to orchestrate a smear campaign—specifically because Lively complained about on-set behavior. The judge found sufficient evidence to let that claim proceed, but ruled the harassment itself did not qualify under applicable employment law.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Blake Lively It Ends With Us trial moves forward after judge dismissal

Judge dismisses 10 of 13 claims in Blake Lively's lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, allowing retaliation and breach of contract claims to proceed to trial in May.

Apr 2, 2026· Updated Apr 20, 2026
What's Going On

In April 2026, the majority of Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni and his associates was dismissed. Out of thirteen claims, only three remain in the case: retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract. Some of the claims, including the ones involving sexual harassment, were nixed due to legal technicalities, such as Lively being considered an independent contractor rather than an employee — a point emphasized by Lively's attorneys following the judge's order. Lively's narrowed set of claims are scheduled for trial on May 18, 2026. As to retaliation, the judge said some evidence might enable a jury to conclude that Baldoni's production company planned not only to damage Lively's reputation but to destroy her career amid fear she'd file a discrimination claim.

Left says: Lively's agency WME framed her case as a courageous stand against an industry that silences women, highlighting how she exposed digital takedown campaigns. Her legal team argued the judge's ruling actually affirmed her core claims and that Baldoni's team "crossed the line" in retaliating against her.
Right says: Baldoni's attorneys emphasized they were "pleased" the judge dismissed all sexual harassment claims, calling the ruling a careful review of evidence. They characterized Lively's interpretation as a "false" declaration of victory, framing the case as being about false accusations rather than misconduct.
✓ Common Ground
There is broad agreement across legal analysis that even if harassment allegations are dismissed, the risks and liabilities related to retaliation persist, with the April 2 decision highlighting this lesson for employers.
Both sides acknowledge that the case is proceeding to trial despite the April 2 dismissals, with lawyers ordered to report settlement positions but both sides rejecting any deal to avert the May 18 trial.
Both parties engaged in a mediation session with a magistrate judge in February that did not result in a settlement, indicating shared recognition that judicial intervention alone could not resolve their dispute.
Objective Deep Dive

The production of the 2024 American film It Ends with Us, starring Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, became the subject of highly publicized disputes and litigation between them concerning allegations of a hostile work environment and smear campaigns. The film, based on Colleen Hoover's 2016 novel, was directed by Baldoni and produced by Baldoni and Lively among others, and was released in August 2024 to commercial success. In her civil complaint, Lively accused Baldoni, who also co-starred in the film, of sexually harassing her during the movie's production and then orchestrating a smear campaign to retaliate against her for speaking up about the alleged mistreatment.

The legal significance centers on the retaliation claims going forward: Liman's ruling will be remembered for Lively losing her harassment claims, but the more important story is the retaliation claims that are going to a jury, with any verdict producing a clear lesson for employers that the dismissal of the underlying claim isn't the end of the story. Lively's harassment claims failed on two distinct legal grounds, neither of which turned on a finding that the alleged conduct didn't occur, but rather more technical legal grounds. Despite those findings, the judge said some sexual harassment claims may be put to a jury to support two retaliation claims that survived the ruling, including one against It Ends With Us Movie LLC and Wayfarer Studios, and a third claim that was left intact alleging breach of a contract rider agreement. What unfolds at trial will depend on whether a jury determines that Baldoni's team engaged in retaliatory conduct—hiring crisis PR professionals to orchestrate a smear campaign—specifically because Lively complained about on-set behavior. The judge found sufficient evidence to let that claim proceed, but ruled the harassment itself did not qualify under applicable employment law.

◈ Tone Comparison

Lively's team used emphatic language like "devastating retaliation" and "extraordinary steps," while Baldoni's attorneys employed neutral legal terminology like "significantly narrowed case." Baldoni's side also used dismissive framing, calling Lively's interpretation a "predictable declaration of victory" that is "false."