In a significant legal twist in the ongoing dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, a fedderal judge on Friday rejected Lively's attempt to claim treble and punitive damages under a California law designed to protect sexual misconduct claimants. According to the Daily Mail, Judge Lewis Liman ruled that the actress could not seek potentially tens of millions of dollars in additional damages from her It Ends With Us co-star and director. However, Liman granted Lively's request for legal fees and costs related to Baldoni's dismissed $400 million defamation lawsuit, marking a partial victory.

Judge Liman's 47-page rebuke: why Lively's 'end run' failed

In a scathing 47-page ruling, Judge Lewis Liman accused Lively of trying to make an "end run" around the law and "circumvent" what California Civil Code Section 47.1 was meant for, the Daily Mail reported. the law,passed in 2023 in response to the MeToo movement, was intended to shield people who come forward with allegations of sexual impropriety from retaliatory defamation lawsuits. Liman said Lively's request "circumvents processes designed for the orderly, just, and fair determination of civil claims in federal court" and would amount to a "kind of malicious prosecution or abuse of process claim." The decision represents a clear legal defeat for Lively, who had continued pursuing damages even after both sides reached a settlement last month.

The $400 million defamation suit and the legal fees win

While Lively lost on the damages front, she scored a victory on legal fees. Judge Liman ruled that she is entitled to costs incurred defending Baldoni's failed $400 million defamation lawsuit, which he filed in January last year and was dismissed five months later. The report notes that while both sides have spent as much as $60 million on attorneys, any fee award will only cover the cost of defending that specific suit . Liman did not yet set the "appropriate measure of fees," leaving that for a later stage. This partial win could amount to millions of dollars.

California's untested Section 47.1: a MeToo shield that didn't fit

The law at the heart of Lively's bid, California Civil Code Section 47.1, is relatively untested legislation passed in 2023. It was designed to protect alleged victims of sexual misconduct from retaliatory lawsuits by shifting certain costs and allowing for enhanced damages. However, Judge Liman interpreted it narrowly, stating that it creates a "narrow exception to the usual litigation process for a specific and limited kind of relief" and that compensatory and punitive damages "do not fall within that exception." The ruling highlights the tension between state-level protective statutes and federal court procedures. As reported, a source close to Lively downplayed the ruling as "procedural" and said it leaves open the door to seek damages "by other means."

What's next: an independent lawsuit or counterclaim?

The most pressing open question is whether Lively will pursue a new lawsuit to recover damages.. According to the Daily Mail, a source close to Lively suggested that the court's ruling leaves the door open for "an independent lawsuit or a counterclaim, including in federal court." Another notable aspect of the ruling is that Judge Liman found no evidence of malice, meaning he accepted that Lively genuinely believed her allegations. This could strengthen any future claim. The case, which was due to go to trial last month before being settled, may not be over yet. Observers will watch for any new filings that test the boundaries of Section 47.1 again.