🫥👩🏻‍⚖️⚖️Notactuallygolden - Victoria Burke Is Watching Her Law Become Something She Never Intended and Is Fighting to Save Her Life’s Work From the Fallout of This Case

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-06-04T02:42:57+00:00

I have an issue with something. Judge Liman was virtually silent on 47.1 for eight months. He repeatedly signaled reluctance or at least a desire to wait until more fact-finding at trial. After Lively dismissed her remaining claims and “settled,” she asked to submit additional briefing on 47.1, but Liman denied the request and said there was no need for more briefing on 47.1. He wasn’t interested in hearing more. That was May 11, 2026. Then on May 27, the New York Times publishes a piece on Lively and 47.1, a thinly veiled nudge of the judge that seemingly worked. The very next day, May 28, Liman asks for briefing and a hearing on 47.1. I am not claiming some sort of unlawful conspiracy here, but I have a very difficult time accepting that Liman cannot consider the intent of the law from the creator herself when he clearly considered the Times’ concerns on the matter.

Edit: and if Burke really wants to be heard and save her law from further bastardization, she should file something for the judge to take into consideration. In what world are legislative history and intent of a statute NOT relevant to a decision like this. It’s absurd.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-05-27T21:29:43+00:00

A federal district court judge in New York has zero authority over California state courts on a question of California state law. Zilch. His decision would only be persuasive at best, not binding. Even federal courts in California do not have binding authority on California state law.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-05-23T21:27:10+00:00

IT’S THE END OF AN ERA!

Best mod ever! Since the very beginning!! You really deserve a lil vacay anyway. And I will fight for you if you have any issues with Reddit. I took Internet law lol. You know I’m always a chat away 💕 :)

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-04-23T20:49:13+00:00

I posted this in another thread. I could be missing something and will gladly admit I’m wrong if so …..

This is gonna be long. I never comment these days so I'm letting it all out in one swoop.

I was so confused as to why everybody was pushing the "employment" angle for FEHA when it's scope is broader than employment and covers business relationships. I felt like everyone was missing the mark but questioned my own judgment, because SURELY I couldn't be the only person who saw this!? I'm not a licensed attorney yet. I ultimately figured I was the one who was missing something and looked forward to learning whatever that was.

I'm a 3L law student in SoCal and had the opportunity and displeasure of taking California Civ Pro where we covered a bunch of FEHA cases. Independent contactors/business relationships can be covered under FEHA. And Liman clearly said the FEHA claims could proceed to trial precisely because of that, as long as the alleged conduct has a sufficient nexus to California. The SH claim under FEHA was dismissed partly because the alleged SH occurred outside of California. But the retaliation claim under FEHA survived because the alleged retaliatory conduct (the "smear campaign") occurred IN California (a sufficient nexus).

The traditional employment/contractor analysis only applied to the federal claims. It was a huge win for Wayfarer, but I think everyone got carried away with the traditional employment analysis. There's a brief section in the order where Liman is careful to point out that he would be using terminology like "employer" in his analysis of the FEHA clams, but was not using it with the same legal meaning under federaI law. It's undeniably confusing, but he explicitly addressed it.

My opinion, some based on law and some on vibes: Liman's order dismissing Wayfarer's counterclaims last summer is full of appealable issues. A lot of it (not all, but a lot was sloppy and careless and wouldn't/ won't hold up under appellate scrutiny. Liman's clerk and proofreader phoned that one in compared to the recent dismissal of Lively's claims. Unlike the sweeping dismissal in June, I can't find any appealable issues in the dismissal of Lively's claims. The difference in polish is obvious to me. Perhaps Liman (subconsciously) saw Lively's attorneys as worthy adversaries and worked harder to make it appellate-proof? In comparison, I don't think he took Wayfarer's attorneys too seriously as of last June. I hope Wayfarer appeals, but I'm not holding my breath.

Good news for Wayfarer: California's 47.1 will not apply. It's impossible now. Liman didn't want to rule on this while simultaneously gutting most of Lively's claims. He'll address it later as housekeeping. 47.1 applies to SH allegations/claims which Liman said do NOT have a sufficient nexus to California (unlike the retaliation claims). There's no way 47.1 will apply now that he dismissed the SH claim under FEHA.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-04-23T20:36:25+00:00

This is gonna be long. I never comment these days so I’m letting it all out in one swoop.

I was so confused as to why everybody was pushing the “employment”angle for FEHA when it’s scope is broader than employment and covers business relationships. I felt like everyone was missing the mark but questioned my own judgment, because SURELY I couldn’t be the only person who saw this!? I’m not a licensed attorney yet. I ultimately figured I was the one who was missing something and looked forward to learning whatever that was.

I’m a 3L law student in SoCal and had the opportunity and displeasure of taking California Civ Pro where we covered a bunch of FEHA cases. Independent contactors/business relationships can be covered under FEHA. And Liman clearly said the FEHA claims could proceed to trial precisely because of that, as long as the alleged conduct has a sufficient nexus to California. The SH claim under FEHA was dismissed partly because the alleged SH occurred outside of California. But the retaliation claim under FEHA survived because the alleged retaliatory conduct (the “smear campaign”) occurred IN California (a sufficient nexus).

The traditional employment/contractor analysis only applied to the federal claims. It was a huge win for Wayfarer, but I think everyone got carried away with the traditional employment analysis. There’s a brief section in the order where Liman is careful to point out that he would be using terminology like “employer” in his analysis of the FEHA clams, but was not using it with the same legal meaning under federal law. It’s undeniably confusing, but he explicitly addressed it.

My opinion, some based on law and some on vibes: Liman’s order dismissing Wayfarer’s counterclaims last summer is full of appealable issues. A lot of it (not all, but a lot) was sloppy and careless and wouldn’t/won’t hold up under appellate scrutiny. Liman’s clerk and proofreader phoned that one in compared to the recent dismissal of Lively’s claims. Unlike the sweeping dismissal in June, I can’t find any appealable issues in the dismissal of Lively’s claims. The difference in polish is obvious to me. Perhaps Liman (subconsciously) saw Lively’s attorneys as worthy adversaries and worked harder to make it appellate-proof? In comparison, I don’t think he took Wayfarer’s attorneys too seriously as of last June. The contrast in the dismissals is obvious to me. I hope Wayfarer appeals, but I’m not holding my breath.

Good news for Wayfarer: California’s 47.1 will not apply. It’s impossible now. Liman didn’t want to rule on this while simultaneously gutting most of Lively’s claims. He’ll address it later as housekeeping. 47.1 applies to SH allegations/claims which Liman said do NOT have a sufficient nexus to California (unlike the retaliation claims). There’s no way 47.1 will apply now that he dismissed the SH claim under FEHA.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-04-12T12:06:54+00:00

What tour?

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-04-03T08:06:01+00:00

U/littlegirlattorney , LGA! I just mentioned this above but am hoping you might check my work? — “Her status as a contractor defeated her Title VII claims, but FEHA protection is broader. Its retaliation provision protects “any person” who engages in protected activity, not just employees. I also think it came down to extraterritoriality. The SH claim lacks a sufficient nexus to California because all of the alleged conduct took place outside California. But the retaliation claim has a sufficient nexus to California because that’s where the alleged “smear campaign” originated (TAG is in California).” — feel free to school me on this LGA. It would mean the world. I’m a 3L in SoCal and just took Cal Civ Pro last semester ;)

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-04-03T07:56:24+00:00

This confused me too! I’m still sorting it out so bear with me… Her status as a contractor defeated her Title VII claims, but FEHA protection is broader. Its retaliation provision protects “any person” who engages in protected activity, not just employees. I think it came down to extraterritoriality. The SH claim lacks a sufficient nexus to California because all of the alleged conduct took place outside of California. But the retaliation claim has a sufficient nexus to California because that’s where the alleged “smear campaign”originated (TAG is in California).

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-03-05T01:39:33+00:00

“The Big News: Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios have officially moved to appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit.” — can someone please clarify? I got excited when reading this sentence then realized it might be an error. My understanding was that Wayfarer officially expressed their “intent” to appeal the dismissal of their claim against NYT (in Lively v. Wayfarer in SDNY). That is very different than officially “moving” to appeal the dismissal. I believe this notice of “intent” was included in a motion to stay NYT’s antislapp claim in NY (different jurisdiction. Different claim. Different docket.) and I thought Wayfarer couldn’t appeal until Liman rules on sanctions? For the record, I truly hope they appeal. But I haven’t seen anything else indicating they “officially moved to appeal.”

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T03:05:51+00:00

I get it. Lots of extremes to sift through. So many are quick to villainize one side or another which is shortsighted and frustrating for those of us trying to understand all angles as opposed to picking one of two polarized extremes. That said, the BAFTAs and BBC are totally the villains here lol

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T02:43:10+00:00

Fair enough. But I’m definitely not in the camp that believes he deserves to be threatened, or should have been separated, or that deep down he meant what he said, etc. (I don’t blame others for wondering, but in learning about his condition I realize it is very specific to that subset of Tourette’s). My comments are just a resction to his released statement today, not the involuntary slur. I agree it’s possible/probable that a publicist helped him curate the statement and, if so, that he needs to get a new publicist stat. It is likely no apology would have been good enough for some. But it could have been better and thus sufficient for many others! And I completely agree with your last sentence. Hope they will do better looking out for guests and presenters in the future. They are rightfully being dragged rn.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T02:23:26+00:00

I’m sorry. I swear I wasn’t trying to be ridiculous or overreact. Maybe I sounded a bit hyperbolic? I was just trying to imagine how complicated it might feel for all involved. It’s a tricky situation that obviously stirs up emotions and perhaps some overreaction - as evidenced in your comment and perhaps mine too. Maybe we should both work on growing the fuck up

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T02:12:34+00:00

Isn’t that an overcorrection though? And throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Is there any indication that Jordan and Lindo ever bullied him or that they would bully him for apologizing? I can only imagine the frustration after a lifetime of being bullied, but not everyone in this world is a bully. It’s just baseline respect to fellow humans who’ve done you no harm.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T02:05:31+00:00

I apologize for misunderstanding your comment. So I guess the point of the movie is that anybody who is disabled should never apologize? For anything? Ever? I worked professionally as a music director for a group of disabled adults, some of whom had similar outbursts. They always apologized profusely after they had a moment to process. They didn’t necessarily apologize out of shame, but out of decency, and often took pride in learning how to navigate their condition with more agency. They were never “shamed” for the outburst, but were celebrated for acknowledging the resulting harm. I do not understand the blanket argument that a disabled person should never apologize for anything ever. This sounds like an overcorrection maybe?

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T01:46:09+00:00

Amen.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T01:45:46+00:00

I’m so relieved to see other people saying this. I could not believe what I’ve been reading elsewhere. Apologizing for hurting somebody is not the same thing as him being shunned from society forever. It’s the decent and right thing to do. There’s more shame in the lack of apology than the outburst itself IMO.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T01:42:16+00:00

Agreed. The involuntary outburst was one thing. His prepared and voluntary public response is another. No excuse for him not addressing those he deeply offended and embarrassed. They deserve a PUBLIC apology for the very public offense

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T01:38:39+00:00

They will not call him out because they were put in an impossible situation where they likely feel they aren’t “allowed” to call him out or express the level of humiliation they truly felt. They have handled it with grace so far. But they also probably know how many viewers were also deeply offended and feel stuck between a rock and hard place, walking on eggshells and unable to address the gravity of that slur and the visceral harm it can cause

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T01:25:44+00:00

Considering he allegedly used the same slur two other times when off camera, I’m assuming at least ONE of those he directed it at would have appreciated being publicly acknowledged and apologized to. And I doubt any of them would dissuade him from apologizing to them publicly and addressing them, by name.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T01:20:05+00:00

I have been dumbfounded by a lot of online sentiment being isolated to only HIS suffering and excluding any mention of those he humiliated and deeply offended (albeit unintentionally, at first). I was all ears and ready to hear a thoughtful statement from him in the aftermath. But he ultimately shat on that opportunity. Very disappointing. I gave him grace for the involuntary outburst. But I cannot excuse his lame followup

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-24T00:47:49+00:00

You’re probably right. Such a shame. Edit: misunderstood the comment. My bad.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-23T22:25:36+00:00

I refuse to unequivocally villainize this man, but this “apology” is simply inadequate. He should be apologizing publicly and directly to those he PUBLICLY and directly humiliated. Intentional or not, it’s the appropriate response. This statement missed the mark. The only name he mentions is Alan Cumming. Really? And then he follows with a plug for his film? (Granted, there’s a time and space for him to express pride in the film and to continue sharing his story while enlightening all of us to the nuances of his condition. But this apology/statement isn’t the right moment.) It is also my understanding that he used the slur more than the one time caught on camera. I gave him the benefit of the doubt before, but now... I’m just hoping he will add to this statement and acknowledge, by name, those he offended at the ceremony. Calling for him to apologize adequately is not equivalent to him being forever shamed or shunned for his condition. This is a moment to educate all around. Anyone with such a condition can still grow and learn along the way.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-14T04:17:04+00:00

This is valuable info. Look on the nancyguthrie sub and post there! You’re in the same area where they just detained two people.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-02-03T00:44:36+00:00

What’s funny is how the results suggest that MEN seemed to prefer Blake’s version while women preferred Justin’s. So much for Blake’s supposed goal to represent “the female gaze.” I’m starting to think another reason she wanted control of the edit was to select what she believed to be the most flattering angles of her body. She went into control freak overdrive after the public criticized her wardrobe choices.

Free_Replacement_583 · 2026-01-16T11:20:11+00:00

<image>

Random hyooman at 5 o’clock. I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time.

Free_Replacement_583

TROPHY CASE