Close Menu
    THIS JUST IN! Justin Baldoni Drops Legal Backdoor To DESTROY Blake Lively's Case!?
    Celebrities2026

    THIS JUST IN! Justin Baldoni Drops Legal Backdoor To DESTROY Blake Lively’s Case!?



    THIS JUST IN! Justin Baldoni Drops Legal Backdoor To DESTROY Blake Lively’s Case!?

    THIS JUST IN! Justin Baldoni Drops Legal Backdoor To DESTROY Blake Lively’s Case!?

    Popcorned Planet, hosted by Andy Signore, covers breaking celebrity news, pop culture controversy, and internet-driven stories.

    Support Popcorned Planet, become a member, or explore our documentaries:
    👉 https://PopcornedPlanet.com

    Support Us Across Social Media:
    👉 https://linktr.ee/AndySignore

    Contact / Business inquiries:
    press@popcornedplanet.com

    Mail:
    Andy Signore
    PO Box 48742
    Tampa, FL 33647

    Popcorned PlanetÂź is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

    This video contains commentary, criticism, and reporting intended as fair use under U.S. law.
    Thumbnail imagery is transformative satire and does not depict actual events.

    Share.
    View 42 Comments

    42 Comments

    2. @MelodysMakeOvers on

      I know you guys want to keep everyone in the know.. and i dont understand why the lawyers you know and have on the show often, havent told you this…but as someone who has experience with all of this first hand…please be careful what y'all share…bc they are watching..and based on what you report, you could just fuel their fire.

    3. @EricaMiller-l9u on

      You know what would be amazing for this disgusting woman ( blake) someone who she harassed to come out and sue her just like what's going on with Katy perry right now… Blake has grabbed ppl nuts without permission… talk about s.a. I hope someone who she harassed in her life comes out. If she can do it to Justin for no reason then what's goes for her should go for everyone she harassed

    4. @channa28-z on

      I think you have great content but You ramble on too much and go over the same sentence multiple times…..and you' have gotten better but you still dont let your guests speak often.

    6. @knjmoorhouse5093 on

      No, the judge specifically goes into detail that there never was sexual harrassment. Her claims do not meet the criteria of sexual harrassment. Extraterritoriality was a separate issue

    7. @redbiddz3926 on

      It’s a waste of time having anyone on your channel because you don’t let them say much. Just keep having you Andy and stop bringing people on to just not let them speak lol

    10. @razorblade136 on

      It doesn’t matter how the case ends up!!! Blake & Ryan gave list in the courts of public opinion and HOLLYWOOD!!!! Who would hire those manipulative 🐍🐍

    11. @cinnyw3048 on

      Said from the beginning, there is NOT going to be a trial. Blake will settle mere days before. That's been my prediction over a year. We will know sooon!! I just don't believe she will go to trial on 3 minor claims. I've had clients settle night before & day of trial start!

    12. @dandush123 on

      The best outcome for Boldoni would be for Lyman to take the path out suggested by his lawyers. The starting point needs to be the complaint with the CRD. That sets a trial in motion. I don't see any way Lively wins that. Most of the "damaging" information ( not really) dates back to before the CRD complaint was filed.

    14. @three999 on

      This PR lady has been spreading lies in her YouTube about BL and RR lost 10 claims to technicality. 💯 Lies. She is on Blake's side. Stop inviting her over to spread lies.

    15. @HamDo24 on

      I've said in a comment on another podcast I think that the Judge may have put it to a jury as he can see even when he has dismissed the other 10 that BL is still playing the victim and using the PR spin.Maybe the judge thinks that's disrespectful to what he has already stated and ruled and has thought pass it to the jury and see how she can spin it there. I too think Justin and Wayfarer will come out well in front of a jury

    16. @Nijabowockie7 on

      But it wasn’t just Blake not knowing. Her lawyers were involved way before she filed her crd complaint with the vanzan subpoena. She’s again just lying a pretending to be a shrinking innocent violet

    21. @AlyssaPinto-u6u on

      This guy Andy landed on the “right side of this story” mostly by luck and timing, not because of any real principle or insight. Now he’s milking it for credibility, acting like he earned a moral high ground he just happened to stumble onto. Underneath it all, his narcissism shows, always more interested in being seen as right than actually doing right 😏

    27. @IBeBonkers on

      Okay! So I have to comment on the comments on this post!! Especially to all the people getting mad at Andy for saying Baldoni’s claims got tossed out on a technicality.
      The thing is it seems American law works on technicalities as it has different state laws. Something illegal in one state is legal in another. So that basically means, lawyers have to choose where to bring their cases. While Liman tossed out Blake’s SH case, he tossed it out on the basis of the fact that, if it happened, it happened in New Jersey. Which to the layperson is a technicality coz the ruling does not say one way or the other whether he harassed her or not. While Liman did go through some of her SH claims & state that they wouldn’t rise to the level of SH individually (not as a totality, which is possible) he did not rule stating there was no SH. His statements on the individual SH Claims, to quote Liman, were simply dicta & not a ruling.

      But to give Baldoni his due, he can only defend again claims brought against him & not claims that haven’t been brought. Blake brought SH claims under CALIFORNIA LAW & he refuted the SH Claims under California Law. Had she brought SH claims under New Jersey law or federal law, only then could he have refuted claims under New Jersey or Federal law. He cannot refute claims that haven’t been brought.

      This is a problem that having different laws is different states causes!!

    28. @IBeBonkers on

      Andy my thoughts on the response to Wayfarer’s filing in response to Lively’s response to their renewed MJOP filing.

      – The first argument that Wayfarer put forth doesn’t hold water & here’s why. Under FEHA, protections attach to the act of reporting based on an objectively reasonable belief & not the ultimate legal conclusion stating that the court found the claims not to be discriminatory. There would be no need for this section of the FEHA law if only practices forbidden under FEHA law gave rise to retaliation claims. If it is as Wayfarer claim, then anyone whose claim the court found was not discriminatory under FEHA could be retaliated against. The law very clearly states the opposite.

      – The second argument – that Lively’s good faith belief was not objectively reasonable – well I agree in part & I disagree in part. Lively’s argument that CA law because her lawyers were from CA & because of the ALA choice of law provision is utter rubbish. But I keep coming back to Wayfarer being a CA entity & defendant residing in CA & the CRD for the ‘Objectively Reasonable’ issue. Wayfarer didn’t touch that in their arguments. Objectively reasonable by definition means it’s possible for one to reach that conclusion even if it is wrong. The part I agree with Wayfarer is that retaliation should be limited to after the CRD, because the CRA cannot be considered Protective Activity enforceable under CA law. It did not cover acts that happened in CA & did not have a choice of law provision. So without the CRD complaint there is no protected activity in California & without a protected activity there can be no retaliation.

      – On the 3rd argument – Defendants did not retaliate against Lively for filing a CRD complaint – well I think this becomes a fact issue & needs to go to trial, though I think basis this, TAG should be dismissed as they were hired for a short period & that ended before the CRD filing if I remember correctly. Also Liman already ruled in his MSJ ruling & TAG’s renewed motion for summary judgment that there existed a genuine material fact issue as to whether Lively engaged in Protected Activity & whether she was retaliated against.

      In essence, I think retaliation after the CRD should survive!!

    29. @nevaron7 on

      She has no argument here; she started ALL this smear campaign—liar lively did not rule these motions, her thief lawyers did, they are keeping the fight going to collect their million-dollar-a-month fees. If they had been ethical, they would have told her to drop it, but instead of helping her, they ruined her and her reputation. She is done, everyone hates her, and she has exposed herself. This is all a big joke now. Most of us are here waiting for the final nail in her coffin.

    31. @ddunbar on

      I find it ridiculous that a court found that just because someone thought or felt something was real that it could be real. That is insane! Yes, a person can say something that a person takes wrong, but there still has to be intent to do harm or intent to make someone feel a certain way. Throwing allegations out without any evidence is just dangerous.

    33. @willummcmurphy8838 on

      For the fact that you have this documentary coming out you could at least get the facts straight here!! The judge did address everythingvincluding seual harassement it Was NOT a technicality- he literally addressed each 10 claims & said it didnt meet the threshhold even if they were in the right jurisdiction & even if the judge let her have the "employmee" status as aposed to contractor IT STILL DID NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD!

    34. @sabatronic on

      I think they knew filing it in the wrong place would get them thrown out because it's the only way out clean for her. They can afford good lawyers and the filings had rookie errors in them. Feels deliberate.

    37. @lindseyg9429 on

      The Facts Are Justin Wins Cuz There Was Absolutely Unequivocally No SH – Blake Lied Justin Did Not SH Her. BL Should Be Held Responsible For All Of Justin’s Lawyer Fees & All Costs Since She Lied & Forced Him To Take Her To Court. He Should Take Her All The Way To Trial & Everyone Involved In What They All Did To Justin Should Be Exposed
 BL, RR, TS
 And The Rest of The Deceitful Crew. RR Should Be Sued For His Character of Nice Pool Also. These People Are đŸ‘č

    39. @Grungefan2018 on

      The amount of tax payor money she has wasted due to her ego and selfishness of wanting to take over a movie she was merely an actress in. If she wanted more she should have said so up front or not auditioned. She flat out said in an interview that she would creepily pretend she just wanted to act like that was the lowest of the low. Acting is an art and a skill no shame there. Also, there has to be a single vision for a movie. If you habe everyone throwing in their 2 cents the movie would turn out to be a discombobulated disaster. And I have to say screw Blakes authorship bs. I cant anymore

    Leave A Reply