Blake Lively hopes Justin Bardoni will pay millions of dollars to file a frivolous honour and loss lawsuit against her at a test of California law aimed at protecting victims of sexual harassment who speaks up.
Lively accused her director and co-star Baldoni of sexually harassing her for complaining about it by launching an online smear campaign. Bardoni responded with a $400 million defamatory lawsuit, where he actively accused him of trying to destroy his career with false allegations.
Judge Louis Liman brought his serious victory to life in June when he dismissed Bardoni’s case. The trial over her allegations is on track next spring in federal court in New York.
In a motion filed Monday, Livelys’ lawyers argued that millions of dollars should be awarded to cover the lawyer’s fees and costs. She also seeks high-pitched damages for her financial, emotional and psychological harm and punitive damages for abuse of the court system.
Lively relies on protecting survivors from the Arms Honorary Atuts Litigation Act signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023. In her allegations, she says the law “ensures that individuals experiencing sexual harassment or retaliation can share their experiences with courts, agents, media and others.”
The law provides for immunity from honour-impaired lawsuits against accusers who have a “reasonable basis” to file sexual harassment complaints, and does so without knowing that they are “no malicious” or that they do so as to be false. Lively’s lawyers argue that these standards are met.
He dismissed Bardoni’s complaints, but Liman did not rule on whether California law would apply to the case.
Bardoni’s lawyers argue that it is not the case.
“The vibrant sexual harassment allegations have restored her reputation by reviving her reputation by exaggerating wholesale or exaggerating (and not harassing) interactions in a coordinated, malicious effort to grab control of the film and then restore her reputation,” Bardoni’s lawyer wrote earlier this year.
They also argued that in order to find out that California law applies, Liman must essentially shorten the trial by adjudging the issues of contested facts. They also argue that the law prevents litigators from making good-intentional arguments and therefore “unacceptably calms the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment petition provisions.”
The Lively team wants a hearing to determine the amount, if necessary, following the order for damages.
In a statement, a Lively spokesman said the Bardoni team’s efforts to appeal to her “forgetfulness” would backfire.
“Sadly, Lively is not only facing a retaliatory honour-loss lawsuit after talking about workplace harassment,” the spokesman said. “That’s exactly why California enacted AB 933. It’s about making it clear that survivors are protected when they speak up, and that anyone who uses the legal system to silence the legal system is accountable not only for lawyer fees, but also for Rebel damages and punitive damages.”
