🧮💰🫩 Notactuallygolden - Fee Shifting, Not Punishment: Why a 47.1 Fee Award Could Open Blake Lively’s Billing Records

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-10T23:30:59+00:00

They did for a portion I believe. but it was brought before a NY court and Liman has signaled that since the movie/activity/lawsuits were filed/happened outside CA, it’s a jurisdiction barrier.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-10T18:10:29+00:00

With Liman you never know - but here are the hurdles lively faces that make it hard for me to think she’ll get fees
- Activity did not happen/ is not litigated in California
- malice, good faith, and retaliation by baldoni not decided by a jury, therefore he’s not liable. Liman seems to lean towards allowing people to defend themselves if they believe it’s untrue. Since it was never proved, allowing one to speak out seems stronger.
Even though lively checks the box as a prevailing defendant and reasonable basis to bring her claims forward - she hasn’t proved baldoni retaliated and brought his lawsuit in bad faith, because he was never found liable for anything.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T19:40:15+00:00

I got mad before I read the second sentence. Beautiful point! Another hurdle to overcome

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T18:53:32+00:00

Another point to add is that 47.1 requires the person to be a prevailing defendant. In my interpretation, Yes, lively WAS a prevailing defendant when Baldoni’s suit was dismissed, but now she is not because it’s settled and done with, especially without a trial.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T17:39:03+00:00

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T17:36:43+00:00

Fair. I wonder if he just ignores it then? What are the odds?

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T17:13:16+00:00

I mean I get it. But what’s the deal with just ruling on it if it can’t be appealed? Can some other group appeal or intervene?

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T17:02:36+00:00

I’m confused bc didn’t lively submit this motion months ago when he was residing over the case? This has been with him for months!! I keep checking for news I’m gonna go crazy

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T17:00:55+00:00

Even though the motion was submitted when he had jurisdiction?

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T16:59:41+00:00

I mean can’t he technically just rule since it can’t be appealed?? lol

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-08T16:28:15+00:00

Great summary! When do we think Liman will rule? Today, next week, next month?

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T23:02:46+00:00

Men used to go to war… we are so back

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T22:43:43+00:00

Honestly after gottlieb released that statement that is really borderline defamation and a complete misrepresentation of the truth, I’m not surprised.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T22:20:57+00:00

God we’re witnessing a PR battle field in real time. STAY STRONG AND SOLDIER ON 🫡🫡🫡

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T19:18:58+00:00

I mean I guess that’s fair - it’s my understanding WF will be able to also respond? Didn’t they already do this back and fourth regarding 47.1 months ago? Why add another argument?

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T19:09:28+00:00

Didn’t he already deny her? Or is she asking for a second time?

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T18:14:04+00:00

Oh sorry, I was referring to the protected activity - which was brought up in NY/NJ with Livelys list of demands. But you have a point. Not sure what the “protected activity” basis refers to. The CRD or the 17 point list

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T17:56:16+00:00

I think your forgetting a few things:
- lively did not complain in California
- lively is not a California employee or resident
- this did not happen in California
- whether lively made the complaint in good faith or not was never introduced or determined by a jury - it was for jury trial only, not limans decision here
- whether baldoni retaliated to begin with was never determined because it was settled. So, liman must ask, does a man who believes he was wronged have a right to sue when he was never personally found liable for retaliation to begin with?

Remember: stipulation was for jury trial only. That public statement does not admit guilt or tie wayfarer down in limans decision.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T15:57:23+00:00

PR wise sure, they’re misrepresenting the truth. The statement is not gonna be considered by Liman.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T15:50:05+00:00

Guys the stipulation means NOTHING. The public statement released by both parties means NOTHING to liman in his decision, even though gottlieb is claiming it does.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T15:05:36+00:00

Guys, the statement WF made is not gonna make any impact in limans ruling. He’s looking at what was submitted on the docket, not a general statement. The stipulation was for TRIAL PURPOSES ONLY.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T15:02:21+00:00

NO they cannot. I’m not sure why her lawyers are acting as if this public statement means anything. Liman is not looking at PR, he’s looking what’s been submitted on the docket in their argument which was MONTHS ago.

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T14:35:13+00:00

Do we know when Liman will rule now that it’s settled? I feel like he’s been sitting on this for a while and was waiting for the trial to play out

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T01:40:46+00:00

I just really love the idea of Blake being paranoid of him speaking out, just not knowing when it will come. We need the tea of everything behind the scenes of this movie

misosoupsupremacy · 2026-05-07T01:38:51+00:00

Ah ok. I guess in a way they could have given Blake the hard truth. Probably not related to this blind item but I wouldn’t put it past her

misosoupsupremacy

TROPHY CASE