5/9/26 Lively v. Wayfarer – long story long on CA Civ Code 47.1
5/9/26
There are not shortcuts in talking about California Civil Code 47.1 in this case. #celebritylawsuits #blakelively #justinbaldoni #lawyer #itendswithusmovie #lawyertake
I’m not a lawyer but I understood everything you said and it’s exactly what I was thinking! Wow! Even if I live here, I’m not American but I learned some business and tax law in France, so maybe the law spirit is the same in both countries? That’s quite interesting anyway. One thing France doesn’t have is state and federal laws. There is only one big state law. This 47.1 thing is a hot mess, I understand the intent but it creates more problems than it helps. They should have done it differently, to make it fair for everyone.
BL has the sense of entitlement to believe she should get it just because she claim SH without having to prove it at all!!! That is so wrong! Thank you for this clear explanation of 47.1. May she get nothing as a result.
It's alot to get my head around in terms of the timeline of the course and the various arguments but you explained very well. Still feels a bit desperate to go after a relatively small sum of money ( on this one possible claim) by spending more and wasting court time and resources instead of just moving on. I feel a bit sorry for the judge. Can't figure out if Lively's pushing for this or her counsel are. Weird situation.
Beyond camp Baldoni, it seems the folks who paid the biggest price for this mess is the taxpayers. Yet another reason to despise Raisin Eyed Ryan and Snake Lively, not that we needed one.
HUGE BURN on Blake! She's so entitled, arrogant and elitist that she was incapable of gauging the situation. She exposed herself in the process as a massive evil bully punk! She LOST big time partly because of her arrogance and delusion.
What I don’t understand is that if this civil code only covers certain claims like SH as a protected activity but the judge already determined that none of these claims happened in CA, then how can 47.1 still apply? It is a CA motion and nothing happened in CA?!?
I still don’t get why California law would apply. Seems like the judge was still deciding on whether to throw out FEHA and by settling lively gave up her right to prove the retaliation under FEHA. Seems like a fact issue whether the countersuit was retaliatory or not.
23 Comments
Still don’t understand how a California law like 47.1 applies in this case??
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and explaining legal documents 🫶
LGA, you'd be a wonderful law school professor. Not everyone has the gift of clarity that you have.
This entire fiasco has not done Sigrid McCauley any favors. She is being called a liar left and right.
Such a great explanation ❤
Thank you so much!!! Love your work 🎉
So, can we still get her to impeech herself on the stand?
This is such a great breakdown of all this insanity…thanks so much 🩶!
So the judge invited this mess. Well he is the one to clear it up now
We called it, that her and her dragons (legal team and pr) will twist everything and here we are
I’m not a lawyer but I understood everything you said and it’s exactly what I was thinking! Wow! Even if I live here, I’m not American but I learned some business and tax law in France, so maybe the law spirit is the same in both countries? That’s quite interesting anyway. One thing France doesn’t have is state and federal laws. There is only one big state law.
This 47.1 thing is a hot mess, I understand the intent but it creates more problems than it helps. They should have done it differently, to make it fair for everyone.
She is going to f around and get a trial after all 😂
BL has the sense of entitlement to believe she should get it just because she claim SH without having to prove it at all!!! That is so wrong! Thank you for this clear explanation of 47.1. May she get nothing as a result.
Steve has a WAY better case of proving 47.1 then BL does! He was actually harmed by HER smear campaign!!
Blake and Her Attorney’s moving goal posts:
1. You called me sexy? It’s all about sexual harassment and all survivors
2. No one likes me? – it’s all about smear campaign
3. Our case was dismissed and settled? – it’s all about 47.1
4. 47.1 Motion Got Denied – It’s all about the opportunity to be heard.
Lively abuses the intent of 47.1, further harming real victims, thus proving she does not give a shit about anyone but herself.
It's alot to get my head around in terms of the timeline of the course and the various arguments but you explained very well. Still feels a bit desperate to go after a relatively small sum of money ( on this one possible claim) by spending more and wasting court time and resources instead of just moving on. I feel a bit sorry for the judge. Can't figure out if Lively's pushing for this or her counsel are. Weird situation.
Beyond camp Baldoni, it seems the folks who paid the biggest price for this mess is the taxpayers. Yet another reason to despise Raisin Eyed Ryan and Snake Lively, not that we needed one.
So settling was her way of avoiding public assessment of her claims.
HUGE BURN on Blake! She's so entitled, arrogant and elitist that she was incapable of gauging the situation. She exposed herself in the process as a massive evil bully punk! She LOST big time partly because of her arrogance and delusion.
Thank you for clarifying all of this! This was very helpful!
14:14 Lively didn't act with malice? I think she did. Thank you for clearing the rest of it up
What I don’t understand is that if this civil code only covers certain claims like SH as a protected activity but the judge already determined that none of these claims happened in CA, then how can 47.1 still apply? It is a CA motion and nothing happened in CA?!?
I still don’t get why California law would apply. Seems like the judge was still deciding on whether to throw out FEHA and by settling lively gave up her right to prove the retaliation under FEHA. Seems like a fact issue whether the countersuit was retaliatory or not.