TL;DR
The Moment
Justin Baldoni’s blockbuster defamation push—pegged at roughly $400 million—has been shut down in federal court. A judge entered a final judgment after Baldoni did not file an appeal within the window set when his claims were dismissed earlier this year.
In court, the judge noted he had alerted all sides in mid-October that a closing judgment was coming. Blake Lively’s side responded asking the court to finalize the dismissal while keeping a request for attorneys’ fees on the table. The court agreed to proceed that way, closing the claims now and addressing the fees separately.
Translation: the defamation case is over at the trial court level. A potential appeal could still surface once the court addresses the fee issue.
The Take
This is the legal version of letting the soufflé fall in the oven—you can’t prop it back up after the timer dings. In Hollywood, big-dollar lawsuits often double as PR armor, but the calendar doesn’t care about optics. Miss a deadline, lose a lever.
For Lively and Reynolds, this is a public clearing after months of messy headlines. For Baldoni, it’s a strategic setback with real money stakes if fees are awarded. The New York Times—named as a defendant in the defamation claims—also exits this round with the judge’s door effectively shut.
Meanwhile, the more explosive narrative—the allegations of on-set misconduct and a supposed digital smear effort—lives on in separate litigation. Hype vs. reality check: today’s news isn’t a verdict on anyone’s character. It’s a calendar-driven consequence in one branch of a larger war.
Receipts
Confirmed
- A federal judge entered final judgment ending Baldoni’s defamation claims in district court after his appeal window lapsed, closing the case at that level.
- The court noted parties were warned in mid-October that a final judgment would be entered.
- Blake Lively asked the court to finalize dismissal while preserving her motion for attorneys’ fees; the court permitted the fees request to proceed separately.
COURT DISMISSES BALDONI’S LAWSUIT AGAINST LIVELY
Justin Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit against his It Ends With Us co-star Blake Lively has officially been dismissed after the actor-director missed a court-imposed deadline to appeal his case.
READ: https://t.co/1RekDYod3Q pic.twitter.com/8mc3LYoPUX
— PhilSTAR L!fe (@philstarlife) November 3, 2025
Unverified / Alleged
- Lively’s on-set sexual harassment allegations against Baldoni (which he denies) remain allegations, not findings.
- Claims that Baldoni or associates used encrypted apps and other tools to orchestrate a smear campaign are allegations in filings, not established facts.
- The precise scope and timing of any appeal will depend on how the court handles fee motions.
Backstory (For Casual Readers)
Baldoni directed and co-starred with Blake Lively in It Ends With Us, the 2024 film adaptation that overperformed at the box office. After production, Lively accused Baldoni of on-set misconduct, which he has denied. What followed was a legal crossfire: Baldoni sued for defamation, also naming Lively’s publicist and her husband Ryan Reynolds, as well as the New York Times over reporting tied to the controversy. Today’s development closes Baldoni’s defamation case in the trial court after a missed appeal deadline, but it doesn’t resolve the separate allegations.
What’s Next
- Watch for the court’s ruling on Lively’s attorneys’ fees request; that decision could influence next legal steps and costs.
- Baldoni could seek an appeal after the fee issue is resolved; the clock and procedural posture will matter.
- Separate litigation tied to misconduct and related allegations continues; any sworn testimony or document releases there could change the public narrative.
Sources
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York — final judgment and docket notes referencing party notifications (Oct 17–31, 2025).
- Court filing and on-record discussion regarding Blake Lively’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Oct–Nov 2025).
Question: Do high-profile defamation suits help public figures reclaim their reputations—or do they usually backfire once the court’s clock runs out?
Comments