It Ends With This? Justin Baldoni Unravels Blake Lively’s Case! HUGE GAME-CHANGER!

It Ends With This? Justin Baldoni Unravels Blake Lively’s Case! HUGE GAME-CHANGER!

No rest for me and I love it. Hello my friend. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer and your number one source for everything. It ends with us saga. And maybe this move does end things. Some of you might have heard the term summary judgement. Well, team Wayfairer just filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is similar but different. A motion for summary judgement is filed after discovery. It tests whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact. The moving party argues the facts aren’t in dispute and based on the evidence, we’re entitled to judgment as a matter of law, such as a dismissal. You can’t prove anything after we’ve learned everything in discovery. The court can consider everything outside the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, declarations, documents, admissions, etc. But what Baldoni and crew have done is a motion for judgment on the pleadings late Friday night. No rest for the wicked. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed after the pleadings are closed and it tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. assumes all the facts in the non-moving party’s pleadings are true and asks, “Even if all this is true, do they still fail to state a claim or defense under the law? It’s similar to a motion to dismiss, but comes later in the process.” Now, and in this the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court only looks at the pleadings, the complaint and the answer, not any outside evidence. So, to make it real simple, judgment on the pleadings is basically telling us on the face of the pleadings, even if everything you say is true, you lose. Summary judgement says, “We’ve developed the evidence. We’re done with discovery and depositions, and there are no real factual disputes under the law, and we win.” So, spoiler alert, it’s possible the judge may not rule in the Wayfairer party’s favor. However, if they lose here, they can still try for summary judgement. So really smart to make this move I think especially because spoiler alert again some of the things that they’ve exposed in their motion for judgment on the pleadings are I think a game changer our girl Ellen Gop took the lead on this and she says quote plaintiff Blake Lively’s second amended complaint assert asserts 13 causes of action. Footnote right away. The footnote says, “The Second Amended complaint does not include a 10th or 11th cause of action, but skips from the 9inth cause of action to the 12th cause of action. The table of contents omits the seventh cause of action for aiding and abetting FEA violations. Holy heck. I just pulled up her second amended complaint and this is true. It was filed on July 30th. And look, it goes from the ninth cause of action to the 12th cause of action, skipping 10 and 11. And yes, the table of contents also skips the seventh cause of action. goes from six to eight, nine, and then 12. In the actual second amended complaint, they do get to the seventh cause of action, but then it goes to the eighth cause of action, the ninth cause of action, and then it skips to the 12th cause of action. What? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Back to our girl Ellen Goff. Blake Lively’s second amended complaint asserts 13 causes of action arising from alleged sexual harassment during production of the film It Ends With Us and a subsequent smear campaign allegedly launched in August 2024 concurrently with the film’s premiere. As shown below, plaintiff fails to plead cognisible claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, FEA, and other California statutes for retaliation under Title 7, for defamation per se, and false light under either California or New York law, or for civil conspiracy to commit the underlying tors. Translation: Judge, their fancy lawyers are expensive, but not good. Her pleadings don’t hold up. Ellen details Lively’s claims fail on the following grounds, among others. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act does not have extrterritorial application and thus plaintiffs FEA claims third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action should be dismissed with prejudice. plaintiff’s claims for violations of other California statutes, including California Labor Code 1102.5, the fifth cause of action, and California Civil Code 51.9, the 13th cause of action, fail for the same reason. That reason being that big word extr territorial and that all of these California shenanigans don’t apply here in New York and in federal court. Lively fails to allege an adverse employment action. That’s true. Lively fails to allege an adverse employment action. a requisite for retaliation claims under FEA. Well, I’m sure that Dulu would argue that the alleged untraceable smear campaign is the adverse employment action. But is that an employment action? No. Right? Let’s for a minute pretend Beldonian the Wayfairer defendants did engage in this retaliatory smear campaign. That is not an adverse employment action. She was already done with her employment. Are we going to have to be creating new law here? This is all just so crazy. But Lyman is unlikely to do that because FEA is a California law. and he’s a federal judge. Y’all, we’re at the beginning of this and my brain is already exploding, exploding, exploding. And because she failed to allege an adverse employment action, a requisite for retaliation claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. This also affects her title 7 claim. The second cause of action. The second cause of action is retaliation in violation of title 7. How could they have retaliated if she didn’t list how h that it affected adversely her employment when Californians were making up these laws, they were not taking into account how show business works. Additionally, the excellent Ellen says Lively fails to plead a casual link between her complaints of harassment and the alleged smear campaign as required for retaliation claims under FEA and Title 7. Specifically, Lively fails to plead temporal proximately between Did she mean to say temporal proximity? Anyways, it says Lively fails to plead temporal proximately between the allegedly protected activity and the commencement of the alleged smear campaign or a retaliatory purpose. translation. Lively in her pleadings did not explicitly state how the retaliatory smear campaign happened because she complained about SH. They argue. I’m sure when they respond to this, team ridicula will say otherwise. Additionally, Lively fails to allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies against It Ends With Us Movie LLC, a predicate for any FE claim against It Ends With Us Movie. Huh. I wonder what all those other administrative remedies would be. I bet you they’re going to tell us. Additionally, Lively’s defamation claims the 12th and 14th causes of action are barred by California’s litigation privilege or New York’s fair report privilege, whichever law applies. and Lively fails to plead a civil conspiracy, specifically a tort that all defendants were capable of committing. The 15th cause of action. My brain is racing and I need more. And Ellen delivers. Now she goes granular and says this lawsuit arises from Lively’s claims that she was mistreated on the set of the film It Ends With Us during the first phase of production May 2023 to June 14th 2023 and unlawfully retaliated against for reporting sexual harassment that occurred on the set. filming began in early May 2023. It Ends With Us Movie and Lively through her company Blake, Inc. entered into an actor’s loanout agreement with It Ends With Us Movie for Lively’s Acting Services. The Declaration of Ellen GOP exhibit one. Wayfairer is not a party to the actor’s agreement which provides redacted my guess my guess cuz I am in my Lwoods era there’s probably some language that any disputes would be resolved in mediation and we are clearly not in mediation. Ellen the Great continues, “The film was shot in New Jersey and New York where Lively resides. Lively first complained about inappropriate behavior in May 2023.” dot dot dot. There’s been much to do about the dates of when Belon and the Wayfairer parties were aware of her claims and what was alleged then and what was known and what was not known. Ah, on May 26th, 2023, Lively told Sony that she wanted to file an HR complaint. Production May 2023. That’s what it says. Clearly a typo, but production May 2023 and was suspended in mid June 2023 due to strikes by the Writer Guild and Screen Actors Guild. Now she’s quoting Lively. During that time, May to June of 23, Lively, experienced invasive, unwelcome, unprofessional, and sexually inappropriate behavior. The Second Amended complaint details the alleged incident of inappropriate behavior on the set in paragraphs 85 through 109. Before returning to production on November 9th, 2023, Lively presented a list of 17 protections for return to production as a condition of her return to complete the film. The 17point list was intended by Lively to remedy the misconduct that Miss Lively and others had reported earlier that year. On November 15th, 2023, the Wayfairer parties agreed to Lively’s terms. And on January 19th, 2024, the parties executed a contractual writer, incorporating those terms into the unsigned May 2023 actor’s agreement. Wayfair was not a signatory to the November 2023 writer which was signed by It Ends With Us movie Only. So just jumping ahead here, why Sue Wayfairer? Question of the hour. On January 4th, 2024, the parties participated in an all hands meeting in New York where, according to Lively, a plan was approved for implementation of certain protections that will be adhered to for the physical and emotional safety of Miss Lively, her employees, and all cast and crew moving forward. Production resumed on January 5th, 2024 and concluded on February 9th, 2024. Neither the Second Amended complaint nor its forerunners identify any act of harassment that occurred in the second phase of filming January 5th, 2024 to February 9th, 2024. In fact, on January 14th, 2024, Lively assured a cast member that the inappropriate behavior had been stopped and that quote, “It’s a professional set and we’re getting good work.” On the eve of the film’s premiere and release, rumors of discord on the set already swirling in the press. Accordingly, on July 31st, 2024, the film’s premiere was in August of 2024. Accordingly, on July 31st, 2024, when promo was already in swing, the Wayfairer parties contacted a crisis communication specialist to diffuse the negative publicity and protect his reputation as the film’s director. Ellen should have proof read this a bit more. It’s okay. Typos happen. Grammatical errors. Not the end of the world. On August 2nd, 2024, the crisis management team circulated a scenario planning document with a proposed strategy. Should Lively and her team make her grievances public? Lively contends that this was the launch of a smear campaign and that in the weeks and months that followed, the Wayfairer parties engaged in a sophisticated, coordinated, and well financed retaliation plan. According to Lively, the defendants mounted a wellfunded retaliation campaign that sought to bury and destroy anyone that challenged Mr. Valdon’s brand. Based on these allegations, Lively asserts claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under California and federal law. breach of contract, civil conspiracy, defamation per se, and false light. Thanks for the recap, Ellen. Now we get to the juicier stuff. The standard for judgment on the pleadings. Rule 12c permits a party to move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed, but early enough not to delay trial. The standard for a rule 12c motion is the same as that for a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Thus, judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party, the non-moving party has failed to allege facts that would give rise to a plausible claim or defense. The plausibility requirement calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence supporting the claim. A claim has facial plausibility where the plaintiff pleads factual content sufficient for the court to draw the reasonable interference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. All right. Translation. She had to make this airtight and she didn’t. They’re going to explain why. Ellen continues, “Although a court considering a rule 12c motion is generally limited to the contents of the complaint, the court may consider the complaint the answer any written documents attached to them and any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the background of the case. Also, a complaint is deemed to include materials incorporated in it by reference and documents that although not incorporated by reference are integral to the complaint. Now, Ellen goes for the jugular. Plaintiff asserts claims for sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to supervise, and aiding and abetting under California Government Code 12940, FE8, retaliation under California Labor Code 1102.5, and sexual harassment under California Civil Code 51.9. The threshold question is whether FEA or the others cited California statutes have extr territorial application where as here the plaintiff is not a California resident and the discriminatory conduct did not occur in California. Ah, I’m so glad I read this because now it makes sense. They cite the law where it says, “Failure to adequately plead grounds for extr territorial application of state law constitutes a failure to state a claim on the merits.” Boom. Additionally, the FEA California law does not protect non-C California residents such as Lively where the allegedly discriminatory conduct occurs outside California. California recognizes a presumption that the California legislature did not intend a statute to be operative with respect to occurrences outside the state unless such intention is clearly expressed or reasonably to be inferred from the language of the act or from its purpose, subject matter or history. The employee or employer’s residency is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that FEA does not apply when the torturous conduct is outside of California. They’re citing a lot of case law and all of this, which I am not mentioning, but jam-packed with references to California Russo versus APL Marine or Ruins versus Ford Motor Company and more and more. To apply California law, the complaint must establish a substantial connection between the situs of the legally relevant conduct to California. She definitely did not do that. To determine whether there is a substantial connection, courts look to the location of where the core of the alleged wrongful conduct occurred. New Jersey and New York, not California, babe. Sorry. A plaintiff cannot merely make a formulaic conclusory blanket recitation of ratification by a non-resident defendant to establish the necessary nexus, but must aver nexus between the defendant’s California-based activities and the alleged discriminatory conduct. Tons more case law. Lively is a New York resident. The alleged acts of sexual harassment occurred during the first phase of production on the New Jersey set and in New York. Thus, the allegedly hostile work environment, which are the core of the alleged wrongful conduct was not in California, but in New York and New Jersey. The second amended complaint lacks specific averance of any participation in or ratification of the harassing conduct by a wayfairer or it ends with us movie in California. If Californiaiforniabased employees participated in or ratified the alleged torturous conduct, the complaint must so state with specificity. So the court can determine if these actions are sufficient to state a claim under FEA. plaintiff alleges that Wayfairer’s principles, Jaime Heath, Wayfairer’s president, and Justin Baldoni, who would have authority to ratify an employees conduct, were in New York during the filming where they allegedly committed the acts of harassment that are the subject of the complaint. Steve Sorrowowitz, described as a wayfairer founder and financial backer, is a resident of Highland Park, Illinois. The complaint is bereft of any allegation that Sorrowitz participated in or ratified any discriminatory conduct or adverse employment action, much less in California. In short, FEA, the California law, has no extr territorial application. The presumption against extr territoriality applies and plaintiffs FEA claims are not enforcable in this court. That all sounded super sensible, approvable to me. But Allan is not done. Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation under California Labor Code 1102.5 against Wayfairer and it ends with us movie fares no better. Courts have recognized that neither the express language of section 1102.5 nor its legislative history indicate the California legislaturator’s intent to extend its application beyond California borders. In Okconor, for instance, the court rejected the notion that extr territorial application of labor code 351 and 2802 because the California legislature failed to specify that either provision should be applied extr territorially. The court contrasted these sections with other sections of the labor code which expressly provide for extr territorial application, noting that where it is so desired, the California legislature provided for extr territorial application. As explained above, all the allegedly harassing conduct occurred in New York or New Jersey during the first phase of filming and thus section 11102.5 does not apply. Finally, Lively alleges that Baldon and Heath violated California Civil Code 51.9, which prohibits sexual harassment by any person in a professional relationship with the plaintiff, specifically including directors and producers. Like its sister statutes FEA and Labor Code 1102.5, neither the text nor legislative history of section 51.9 indicate a legislative intent that the statute has extr territorial application. In some the lack of extr territorial application cannot be cured by amendment. Therefore, plaintiffs claims under FEA, California Labor Code 11102.5 and California Civil Code 51.9 should be dismissed with prejudice. But assuming FEA applies extr territorially, California government code 12960b requires that an employee such as plaintiff exhaust her administrative remedies before filing a civil action alleging FEA violations. Similarly, to assert a claim under title 7, a plaintiff may bring a suit in federal court only if she has filed a timely complaint and obtained a right to sue letter. Exhaustion includes the timely filing of administrative complaints addressing the claims and parties at issue as well as the procurement of right to sue letters. plaintiff has the burden to plead timely exhaustion of administrative remedies such as filing a sufficient complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, which she did, and obtaining a right to sue letter. Under the FEA, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the court. Therefore, failure to file an administrative charge before commencing suit is ground for dismissal of an action for violation of the FEA. This, I don’t think, is very strong because she she did do this, right? Similarly, under title 7, failure to exhaust administrative remedies is grounds for dismissal. On December 20th, 2024, Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department against Wayfairer and 10 other defendants and received a right to sue letter for the named parties. It ends with us movie Lively’s employer and party to Lively’s actor agreement and writer. Oh, okay. I take back what I just said. It ends with us movie. Lively’s employer and party to Lively’s actor agreement and writer is not identified in Lively’s CRD complaint. And as a result, Lively did not obtain a right to sue letter with respect to It Ends With Us movie. Accordingly, it ends with us movie is entitled to dismissal of Lively’s third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. Granted, I think, I hope, I don’t know, as Judge Lyman, who knows with him. In addition, as more than 300 days had elapsed since the allegedly unlawful employment practice, It Ends With Us Movie is entitled to dismissal with prejudice of Lively’s first and second causes of action. Okay. It should have been filed sooner cuz everything went down in May and June of 2023. But that’s not all. The second amended complaint fails to plead an adverse employment action within the scope of FEA or Title 7. Title 7 provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter to establish a prima fasiachi I think that’s how you say it case of retaliation under title Title 7, a plaintiff must show one, she engaged in a protected activity. Two, the employer was aware of the activity. Three, the employer took a materially adverse employment action against her. and four, a causal connection between the alleged adverse employment action and the protected activity. California Government Code 12940H FEA similarly provides that it is unlawful for an employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person for complaining of sexual harassment or other discriminatory conduct in the workplace. Retaliation claims under title 7 are broader than under FEA because FEA requires an adverse action for purposes of a retaliation claim to materially affect employment. Whereas Title 7 more broadly defines an adverse action as any action that is reasonably likely to deter employees from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Hm. According to Wayfairer, not all adverse employment actions violate Title 7 or FEA and quote, “It is important to separate significant from trivial harms.” They cite the case law. A plaintiff must show the employer’s retaliatory actions had a detrimental and substantial effect on the plaintiff’s employment. Her employment was well, no, no, no, no. Actually, now that I think about it, she alleged the sh and awfulness back in May of 2023, but she was still employed and filming through January of 2024. H But she wasn’t fired. She wasn’t demoted. She wasn’t Yeah. And actually, the alleged smear campaign didn’t begin until her employment was done in August of 2024. All right. It’s a lot to take in, y’all. They site examples of materially adverse changes include termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices unique to a particular situation. She suffered none of that. Lively does not allege that she was terminated, demoted, deprived of any benefit of her employment with It Ends With Us movie, assert any act that may have blocked or interfered with a potential employment opportunity or other, another typo, or any other materially adverse change to the terms of her employment. Footnote. The second amended complaint demonstrates quite the opposite. After voicing her complaints, Lively was seated more control over the editing not called for in her acting contract and marketing and ultimately obtaining an executive producer credit. Boom. She complained and was not punished. She got more power. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Let’s go back to my room so we can do it. Okay. Sorry. Ellen the Vicious says, “One might even say that Lively was rewarded after her complaints of inappropriate behavior on the set. The second amended complaint includes only three cursory references to adverse employment action, each alleging a coordinated campaign to cast Miss Lively in a false light during the publicity and promotion of the film and thereafter. Lively’s claim of an adverse employment action is based solely on the publication of negative publicity commencing in August 2024 after production ended and after discord on the set spilled into the public eye. Lively’s December 2024 CRD complaint acknowledges that her claims would constitute a redacted. This court should decline plaintiff’s invitation to create a redacted by creating a new standard for adverse employment actions. I said that earlier. Plaintiff’s failure to allege an adverse employment action alone defeats plaintiff’s ability to establish a prima title 7 or FEA violation sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. But that’s not all. merely pleading an adverse employment action is not enough and a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the retaliation was but for cause of the employer’s adverse action. But for causation does not require proof that retaliation was the only cause of the employer’s action but only that the adverse action would not have occurred in the absence of the retaliatory motive. Lively alleges protected activity, complaints of sexual harassment, and a public relations campaign, which commenced in early August 2024, or about the time of the film’s August 6, 2024 premiere, the alleged adverse employment action. The complaint, however, does not link the two, much less plead that the public relations campaign would not have occurred absent a retaliatory motive. It was organic. Simply put, Lively fails to plead causation. A casual link may be shown by pleading the employer’s knowledge that the employee engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and the retaliatory employment decision. Here there was a long ass time between those two. A retaliatory purpose can be shown directly or indirectly by timing where the protected activity was followed closely in time by adverse employment action did not happen here. Over a year passed between plaintiff’s May 2023 complaints and the August 2024 launch of defendants alleged smear campaign. Well, look at this. In GRA versus UBS Financial Services, Inc., an alleged smear campaign was launched more than 4 months after the plaintiff engaged a lawyer and more than 3 months after he resigned was insufficient to show retaliation. Well, if that was insufficient, this more than a year later is definitely insufficient. The Grower Court found that while courts may infer such a link where the alleged retaliation occurred shortly after a plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, this time lapse exceeds the limit. And then they site a whole bunch of case law, even multiple sightings within the Southern District of New York. This one between 3 to 6 months insufficient to establish a casual connection. This other one more than 9 months after the last alleged protected activity. Too remote to establish a casual connection. More than 14 months later. 14 months later. Rubia loca Lively surfaced her grievances in May 2023 and the alleged smear campaign began in August 2024, 15 months later. Even assuming that the January 4th, 2024 all hands meeting where Lively renewed her complaints is the starting point, there is a 7month temporal gap between her complaints and the commencement of the so-called smear campaign in August 2024. Thus, the alleged retaliation is too remote to establish a casual link. The lack of temporal proximity refutes any possible inference that the smear campaign was motivated by a retaliatory purpose. To the contrary, as set forth below, the crisis management public relations campaign designed to counter the already negative and escalating publicity spurred by Lively would have occurred and did occur in the absence of the retaliatory motive. The only word that I can think of right now, sustenance. Sustenance. The second amended complaint includes two cursory allegations of retaliatory intent. One that the public relations plan was embarked in retaliation for Miss Lively’s exercising her legally protected right to speak up about misconduct on the set. and two, Miss Ael, Miss Nathan Wallace, and street relations and others employed or engaged by TAG perpetrated a retaliation scheme against Miss Lively in collusion with the Wayfairer parties. This is insufficient to show a retaliatory animous or purpose. In fact, the Second Amended complaint’s own allegations show something entirely different. That the alleged smear campaign was not retaliatory, but an effort to defend Baldon and Wayfairer against the anticipated storm of negative publicity from Lively and her team’s blistering criticism of Baldon and his work as the film’s director to coincide with the film’s release. Lively cites text messages stolen from Jennifer Abel’s phone by Stephanie Jones to support her retaliation claim. These messages do not evidence a retaliatory purpose. To the contrary, they confirm that beginning in late July 2024, after the completion of production and after the end of Lively’s acting services. No retaliation, no adverse effect. After all of that, Baldoni and the other Wayfairer parties consulted public relations and crisis management professionals to plan how to counter an anticipated onslaught of negative publicity by Lively about a feud on the It Ends With Us movie set and the struggle over control of the production, editing, and marketing of the film. Defendants concerns proved precient when on the eve of the August 6, 2024 premiere, Lively sidelined Baldoni, instructed cast and crew to befriend him. She instructed them to befriend him on social media and refused to be seen or photographed with Baldoni at the premiere where Baldon and his family were banished to the basement until Lively finished her pre-show appearances. the public furer, Baldon’s distress over efforts to cancel him and Wayfairer’s goal to flip the narrative and repair Baldon’s reputation are reflected in the text messages cited in the Second Amended complaint. Thus, what Lively characterizes as a smear campaign began the week of the premiere and was conceived and executed to counter the onslaught of negative press spawned by Lively and her team. Quell speculation about an alleged rift between Baldoni and his cast and crew and explain Baldon’s notable absence from joint press events and the lack of group photos at the premiere. plaintiff in fact admits that the plan was not conceived to respond to any particular allegation. It was entirely about managing the public perception that Mr. Baldoni feared might follow the theoretical possibility that Miss Lively might decide to unfollow his social media accounts. Planning to counter potentially negative publicity and efforts to defend one’s reputation in the face of highly public criticism is not tantamount to a retaliatory adverse employment action and plaintiff fails to plausibly plead the requisite casual link. Lively may not like the public criticism she unleashed, but the Second Amended complaint is devoid of facts that might show that these efforts to neutralize negative publicity had a retaliatory purpose. Absent a sufficient factual basis, the Second Amendment complaints conclusory allegations of retaliation failed to establish a prima showing that Lively’s sexual harassment complaint was the but for cause of the smear campaign as required to plead violations of title 7 or FEA. And in another fail, plaintiff fails to state cognisable defamation claims. Defamation requires a publication that is false, defamatory, unprivileged, and has a tendency to injure or cause special damage. Plaintiff identifies five postlitigation statements by the Wayfairer party’s lawyer as defamatory, per se. each refutes express allegations in Lively’s complaint. However, since the statements address the allegations in the complaint, there can be no dispute that they were made after Lively filed her claims in the course of litigation. Oh my god, they have just reversed Uno. California’s litigation privilege, Civil Code 47B, creates an absolute to bar to any defamation claim based on statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding. Mic drop. And as if all that were not enough, New York does not recognize a claim for false light based on privacy and the allegedly defamatory statements are privileged under New York law. However, on top of all of that, the statements by council, to the extent they can even be construed as defamatory, which they are not, merely repeat defendants assertions made in court and fall within the scope of protected speech under section 74 in New York. Plus, her civil conspiracy claim fails as well. Fail. Fail. Fail. To establish a claim of civil conspiracy under either California or New York law, a plaintiff must plead an underlying tort that the alleged conspirators are capable of committing. The elements of civil conspiracy according to a footnote are an agreement between two or more parties, an overt act in furtherance of the agreement, the party’s intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose, and resulting damage or injury. Plaintiff’s pleading of a civil conspiracy is less than precise, relying solely on the conclusory allegation that each defendant committed numerous wrongful, unlawful and torturous acts pursuant to defendants’s common plan, design, or agreement. The second amended complaint leaves defendants and the court in the dark as to who conspired with whom to commit what tort. For instance, as only an employer is liable for FEA retaliation claims, the non-employer defendants, Baldon, Heath, Saritz, Nathan, Abel, Tag, and Wallace have no duty not to retaliate and thus cannot be liable for conspiring to retaliate against Lively. Oh my god. I mean, maybe this is very novel and the judge won’t agree with that. Holy hell. I need to read this again. As only an employer is liable for that California law FEA retaliation claims, the non-emp employer defendants like him have no duty not to retaliate and thus cannot be liable for conspiring to retaliate against Lively. Game over. I hope. But Lyman also the second amended complaint is bereft of any allegation that Abel Nathan Wallace and Tag were involved in the production of the film when the alleged harassment occurred on the set. Therefore, they could not under any stretch of the imagination be liable for the harassment or retroactively conspiring to harass Lively. Boom. Guaca can finally civil code 51.9 applies only to those in a business or professional relationship with Lively. The second amended complaint does not allege that Nathan Abel Tag and Wallace had any duty to Lively arising from a professional relationship and thus these parties cannot be liable for conspiring to violate section 51.9. These are only a sampling of the shortcomings in plaintiff’s efforts to plausibly plead of civil conspiracy against 10 defendants to commit no fewer than 11 tors and two breaches of contract. For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that the court enter an order granting this motion and dismissing the 2nd through 7th and 12th through 15th causes of action with prejudice. That would just leave the first cause of action, sexual harassment, which I’m pretty sure they’re confident he did not commit and will win in court. And that’s it. If the judge grants this, the SH claim is the only one she would have left. And as if all that were not enough, our girl ethically challenged Ezra filed a letter to the judge about something unrelated. Next week, the parties agreed to depose Josh Greenstein. He worked on the movie in his capacity as an employee of Sony. Both sides were supposed to get 4 hours with this guy. However, Josh Greenstein now has requested to start an hour earlier and the wayfairer parties are not agreeing to start an hour earlier. So, plaintiff Blake Lively reluctantly, respectfully, and urgently requests that the court blah blah blah blah blah. They could not figure it out amongst them. So, they’re asking her bestie, Judge Lyman, to intervene and figure it out. Y’all, y’all, am I getting my hopes up too high? This motion for judgment on the pleadings sounds for real, really solid, really good. My head is exploding. And you know what’s also exploding? My merch sales. Thank you to everyone that’s gone to bypopstuff.com. That’s bypopstuff.com. Grab your friends, wear your florals. I sell that. Also, I’ve got Team Truth and more merch at bypopstuff.com. Plus, I’ve got for you an exclusive podcast a week. Stay informed, be entertained, and get that exclusive bonus episode when you sign up for our Patreon at patreon.com/myame. patreon.com/p to the e to the r to the e to the e to the h to the i to the l to the t to the o to the n. Also, get a personalized video from me on the Cameo website at cameo.com/p to the e to the r to the e to the z to the h to the i to the l to the t to the o to the n. I love making cameos and I have thousands of glowing reviews. If you watched until the end, you are the 1%. Thank you. Hit that like button. Share this video. Say bomb in the comments section because this is such a bomb. Oh my god. What do you think of what our girl Ellen wrote and what the judge is likely to rule? Thoughts on everything? My head is still spinning. My brain is racing. I’m excited to chat with you all in the comments. Bomb. See you there.

🤯 #BlakeLively #JustinBaldoni #TaylorSwift

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!

It Ends With This? Justin Baldoni Unravels Blake Lively’s Case! HUGE GAME-CHANGER!

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