Blake Lively Tries And FAILS!

Blake Lively Tries And FAILS!

I’m not gonna sleep for the next two days. Hello my friend. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer and still your number one source for everything. It ends with us, Saga. We just got the first of two major filings we were expecting today from Bambooling Beth Sheeba. Let’s get into it. Remember, I covered both of these. The motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Baldon and the Wayfairer parties and their motion for summary judgement. Both are similar yet a little bit different. The motion for judgment on the pleading says, “Hey, based on just what is being argued, there’s no need to go to trial. We win already.” The motion for summary judgement is okay. Based on what’s been pleaded and evidence that we have seen through discovery, we win. Nothing will hold up in court. A jury does not need to determine all of this. You can right now and make this all go away. So obviously both of these pleadings are high stakes. As a result, Malice in Wonderland is responding to both, and we’re getting both today. Up first is the allegedly likable plaintiff Blake Lively’s memorandum of law in opposition to defendants’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Can’t wait to see what Ezra wrote here. Yep. Ethically challenged Ezra took the lead here. And I am not going to read the whole thing, just the relevant parts. Here we go. defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings MJOP should be denied because it is an illconceived illtimed and legally baseless effort to deny Blake Lively her day in court. First defendants argument against the extrterritorial application of California laws cannot be squared with the unambiguous choice of law provision in the actor loanout agreement which applies to all disputes between the parties as if the contract had been performed entirely in California. The two and only two cases defendants site in support of ignoring their own choice of law provision involved much narrower provisions and in any event are irreconcilable with wellestablished California precedent. Moreover, defendants should be stopped from advancing this argument because they have repeatedly argued for the application of California law in this litigation and responded to three different pleadings without challenging it only to raise extr territoriality once their own claims had been dismissed on other grounds. Finally, even setting aside the choice of law provision, there is a plethora of evidence of California ties to every aspect of the conduct giving rise to the California claims as set forth here and in the evidence Miss Lively submits in support of her opposition to the motion for summary judgement, MSJ, filed concurrently and incorporated by reference herein. Second, although defendants exhaustion argument is waved, Miss Lively fully exhausted her administrative remedies against each of the defendants, including it ends with us movie, which she clearly alleged in the second amended complaint and is further evidenced in the motion for summary judgement. Defendants object to Miss Lively’s filing of an amended CRD complaint against It Ends With Us movie before she filed the instant lawsuit, but the law is clear that the amendment exhausted her administrative remedy in full. Third, as for the retaliation claims under FIHA and title 7, Miss Lively more than adequately pled an adverse employment action and a causal link. Nuh-uh. Nuh-uh. She benefited. What adverse action? defendants made this same argument in their MSJ motion for summary judgement. However, and given the substantial record on retaliation that has been developed in discovery, Miss Lively’s arguments on retaliation are set forth in her opposition to the MSJ and incorporated by reference herein. Can’t wait to see this. Fourth, defendants arguments against the defamation and false light claims which defendants also moved against in their MSJ motion for summary judgement are without merit. The requisite statements are not opinion and neither the litigation nor fair report privilege apply. And finally, the conspiracy claim pleads all elements of conspiracy as set forth in the second amended complaint and additional facts supporting conspiracy are included in Miss Lively’s opposition to the MSJ, which are incorporated by reference herein. For all the foregoing reasons, the MJOP should be denied in its entirety. This is something I find really fishy, actually, and I’ve never raised this before. On December 20th, 2024, Miss Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. That complaint asserted 10 claims under California law, including SH, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation, aiding and abetting the same, as well as others. That same day, the CRD issued an immediate right to sue letter. That same day, the California Civil Rights Department didn’t do any investigation. That same day, fishy. Very, very fishy. Defendants attacks on the legal sufficiency of the pleadings are meritless, but they are also pointless because even if defendants had identified any deficiency in the second amended complaint’s allegations, the court should conform the pleadings to the evidence in the summary judgement record and evaluate defendants arguments on that basis. measured against the evidence in the summary judgement record. Defendants arguments all fail. I don’t think so. She argues she exhausted her administrative remedies as to all defendants. The California choice of law provision in the actor loanout agreement expressly applies and defendants are estop from arguing otherwise. I would say this and only this is her strongest point. Everything else though fail cuz a contract is a contract and it’s clearly stated and was vetted by lawyers and they’re the ones that drafted it up. Choice of law clause California as set up by them. Wayfairer. This though I think is her weakest argument. Miss Lively’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims do not implicate extr territoriality concerns because they have a sufficient nexus to California. No, they don’t. filming took place in New York and New Jersey and this is being tried in federal court. Wayfairer is liable for harassment and retaliation as a joint employer. Miss Lively’s defamation and false light claims must proceed to trial. In each of their motions, defendants assert that Miss Lively’s defamation and false light claims are subject to the litigation privilege, the fair report privilege, and the opinion doctrine. Miss Lively responds to those arguments here and both are incorrect. Why defendants opinion defense is meritless. She claims the Wayfairer defendants assert that whether conduct amounted to SH or retaliation reflects unactionable opinion. As an initial matter, this ignores that defendants asserted verifiably false facts in connection with the statements. For example, their false assertion that Lively fabricated harassment claims as part of a ploy to take over the marketing of the film. Where was the lie? Where’s the lie in that? They continue that is an assertion which further falsely pinned responsibility on Lively for a marketing plan that was approved by Wayfairer from the start. In any event, the argument is wrong as a matter of law because statements asserting that an individual made a false accusation or lied for financial or for personal gain are capable of being proven true or false. And attributing specific and objectively verifiable motives for fabricating accusations of SH is not protected opinion. But isn’t that kind of the same thing and the same reason why Ryan Reynolds was dropped from all of this? I’m having deja vu now. Ryan Reynolds was dropped from all of this because his defamation was just repeating what was alleged in her legal documents. They can’t be sued for things that were made in legal complaints. Right. Right. Oh, this is rich. Defendants argument that their denials of a smear campaign are not defamatory. Because they’re not. Denying a smear campaign is not defamatory. especially when it’s the truth. Defendants argument that their denials of a smear campaign are not defamatory because they lack a precise definitive meaning fails for similar reasons. Contrary to defendants’s characterization, the defamatory statements not only include denials of participating in a smear campaign, but also specific factual statements such as that representatives of Wayfairer did nothing proactive nor retaliated and only responded to incoming media inquiries. Okay, that part might be strong. I’m team truth, but that’s not defamation. Your boy knows a lot about defamation, and so do you all now because we’ve been covering this. The Wayfairer parties did not act with malice. They were just defending themselves. She continues, “Whether the Wayfairer defendants retaliated against Lively, including by proactively shaping or planting negative stories about her, is objectively verifiable and in fact will be verified by a jury. I can’t wait. The litigation and fair report privileges do not apply.” Oh, really? This is what I was talking about just a moment ago. They claim neither California’s nor New York’s litigation privilege applies to attempts to litigate in the press. Okay. Dumb. Dumb. They weren’t litigating in the press. They were talking about their filings. The Wayfairer defendants argue that the defamatory statements are protected based on the fair report privilege which applies to a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding. But the fair report privilege does not protect litigating in the press either. fail. Not worth any more of my breath. This footnote is hilarious. Defendants suggest that Mr. Freriedman’s ethical obligation to defend his clients necessitated his public statements, but offers no citation to support the assertion or attempt to reconcile such a claim with California law holding that attorneys engaging in mudslinging while a less physically destructive form of self-help than a public brawl is nevertheless one of the kinds of unregulated and harmful feuding that courts and their processes exist to prevent. The judge in this case, remember Lyman had multiple opportunities to issue a gag order against Brian Freriedman, his lawyer, and he did not. And I’m glad for that. And team ridicula wraps up things saying defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied. This is pretty weak and I love it. Weak sauce. All right, y’all. Stay tuned because coming up we’ve got the response to the motion for summary judgement and I’m not sleeping. Also coming up I’ve got some more drama. I don’t want to tell you yet, but just stay tuned. It’s not good for Baldon and crew. That’ll be after the next video. Oh my god, so much more coming up. Before I sign off though, get a cameo from me. I love making personalized videos for you all. Book one right now on the Cameo website at cameo.com/myame. Check out my merch at bypopstuff.com. Hit the like button, share this video, and if you watched until the end, say happy in the comments section because I am. I love you. Let’s chat. Thoughts? Happy.

Blake Lively just dropped her in Opposition for Judgment on the Pleadings – and this brings the laughs! Let’s get into what she has to say against Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties!

Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaHE2Xd6bhJbfM7T1TAmI9Q/join

Listen to The Perez Hilton Podcast with Chris Booker HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com

Sign up for my Patreon and get lots of exclusive content at http://Patreon.com/PerezHilton

Follow Me!
MAIN CHANNEL: http://youtube.com/PerezHilton
WEBSITE: http://PerezHilton.com
PEREZ’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/PerezHilton
GET A PERSONALIZED VIDEO FROM ME HERE: https://www.cameo.com/perezhilton
LISTEN TO MY PODCAST HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com
WEBSITE’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/ThePerezHilton

Check out my merch: http://BuyPopStuff.com

About Perez Hilton:
The original influencer, Perez Hilton founded and oversees one of the most iconic websites ever. In addition to his eponymous blog, he is the host of a very successful podcast, has a loyal following across two YouTube channels, has written four books, has acted in countless TV shows and films – as well as the stage. And, most importantly, he is the proud father of three happy and thriving kids and an adult child, his mother. Perez is one of the most sought after commentators and your best friend!

Blake Lively Tries And FAILS!

Perez Hilton
https://www.youtube.com/perezhilton