Blake Lively wins legal fees bid but is denied damages in Justin Baldoni case

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: A federal judge has issued a new ruling in the legal battle between actress Blake Lively and actor Justin Baldoni, determining whether she can continue pursuing attorneys' fees, litigation costs and damages following the parties' settlement.

The decision, issued on Friday, June 12, by District Judge Lewis J. Liman, partially granted her request for additional relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1. While the court awarded attorneys' fees and litigation costs related to Baldoni's counterclaim, it denied Lively's request for treble damages and punitive damages.

Blake Lively wins attorneys' fees and costs in post-settlement ruling

Lively's attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, welcomed the ruling in a statement to PEOPLE.

"Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1," the attorneys said, adding, "Today's ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1."

They continued, "The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys' fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms. The parties' settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively's rights to obtain those damages."

In his written decision, Liman stated, "The Court concludes that, on this record, the Wayfarer Parties have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the Section 47.1 privilege does not apply, and Lively is therefore entitled to fees and costs."

However, the judge separately concluded that "Lively's request for damages must be denied."

The amount of attorneys' fees and costs Lively may recover has yet to be determined. The parties had previously agreed to waive any appeal of Liman's ruling on the motion.

Justin Baldoni's attorney disputes significance of court ruling

Following the ruling, Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman argued that the decision amounted to only a limited victory for Lively.

"Lively was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more," he said in a statement.

Freedman added, "We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of harassment, retaliation, and a smear campaign that never happened. Ms. Lively demanded over 300 million in fees and damages, had 10 of her 13 claims dismissed, she then chose to settle and received nothing."

He also pointed to the court's refusal to award damages, stating, "Not withstanding that all of her harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Ms. Lively then pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims in what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages. Once again, she failed."

The dispute arose after Lively and Baldoni settled the case just two weeks before trial, with both sides publicly declaring victory. While Lively's lawyers called the resolution "a complete and total victory," Freedman argued it demonstrated that her claims lacked merit. Lively did not receive any money as part of the settlement, despite originally seeking $300 million in damages.

The parties later returned to court to battle over whether Lively could continue pursuing attorneys' fees, litigation costs and damages under California's anti-retaliation law. At a June hearing, Baldoni's attorney Ellyn Garofalo argued that Lively was attempting "an end run around a jury trial" and could not recover under California Civil Code Section 47.1 without first proving her claims before a jury.