Blake Lively Speaks Out After Court Dismisses Most Claims Against Baldoni

Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni just took a sharp turn. A federal judge tossed most of Lively's case, but the core of what her team cares about is still alive and headed to trial.

What the judge just did

On Thursday, April 2, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis J. Liman (65) dismissed 10 of the 13 claims Lively (38) brought against her 'It Ends With Us' director and costar Justin Baldoni (42). According to the order, Lively can still take three claims to a jury: breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting in retaliation. Claims tied to harassment, defamation, and conspiracy are out. Lively's team also made clear the standalone sexual harassment claim is not proceeding because the court classified her as an independent contractor rather than an employee, which changes what laws apply.

• Moving forward: breach of contract
• Moving forward: retaliation
• Moving forward: aiding and abetting retaliation
• Dismissed: harassment
• Dismissed: defamation
• Dismissed: conspiracy
• Dismissed: sexual harassment (her side says the court saw her as a contractor, not an employee)

Both sides were called into a Zoom hearing at 5 p.m. ET on Thursday to go over the ruling. As of now, trial is slated for May 18. Judge Liman already bumped a planned March start because he had a conflict with another case.

Lively's response

"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. For Blake Lively, the greatest measure of justice is that the people and the playbook behind these coordinated digital attacks have been exposed and are already being held accountable by other women they've targeted. She looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight."

Her attorney also stressed that the sexual harassment piece fell out for a technical reason — the contractor vs. employee distinction — not because, in their view, nothing happened.

How we got here (the short version)

Lively first took complaints of sexual harassment and on-set safety issues to California's Civil Rights Department, then filed a federal suit in New York in December 2024 against Baldoni and people tied to his Wayfarer Studios. Along with the set-behavior allegations, she accused them of launching a retaliatory smear campaign once she spoke up.

Baldoni hit back with a countersuit in 2025 that named Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and others. That countersuit did not survive. Judge Liman dismissed it in June 2025, and Lively/Reynolds' side called the decision a complete vindication. Days later, Lively posted that she was standing with nearly 20 organizations backing women's right to speak up about safety and said retaliatory lawsuits are designed to shame people into silence.

Discovery kicked off late last year and got messy in the way these things do: some of Lively's private texts with Taylor Swift surfaced in the process. In January 2026, Baldoni's attorneys tried to get Lively's entire case tossed, framing her claims as trivial. Lively's camp countered that the heart of it is straightforward: women should be safe at work and not punished for reporting problems.

Right before this week's ruling, Judge Liman gave Baldoni a one-week extension in pretrial wrangling because of a late document dump and a 40-name witness list from Lively. Her team objected, saying the delay was just another stalling tactic.

What actually goes to the jury now

Despite losing most of the claims on paper, Lively is still heading to trial on the three that speak directly to whether she was punished for raising safety concerns and whether promises to her were broken. If you're trying to read the tea leaves: the harassment and defamation angles are gone, but the retaliation storyline — which her team has framed as the point of the case from day one — is very much alive.