The Lively v Wayfarer Lawsuit Settled out of Court

On Monday, May 4, 2026 — just two weeks prior to the scheduled starting date for the Lively v Wayfarer, et al trial, a joint press statement was issued indicating the parties agreed to settle the remnants of the Lively v Wayfarer, et al case.

A notice & stipulation of settlement hit the court’s docket on Thursday, May 7th. And the judge signed off on it later the same day.

This settlement stipulation states the Lively v Wayfarer, et al case is dismissed with prejudice. So, this case is now over, and the claims made in this suit cannot be brought again.

Additionally, all the stipulating parties (Blake Lively, Wayfarer Studios LLC, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, The Agency Group PR LLC, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel) “irrevocably waive any appeal of any orders in the Consolidated Action”, referring to both this Lively v Wayfarer, et al suit and the previously dismissed Wayfarer et al v Lively et al suit.

BUT…

This settlement also allows for Blake Lively’s “pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Treble Damages and Punitive Damages in the Wayfarer Action” to remain before the court.

In this motion Blake Lively claims the Wayfarer parties brought forth a baseless, retaliatory defamation action against her for complaining about alleged sexual harassment in the course of her employment with the It Ends with Us film production and about alleged retaliation during that film’s release.

This, Lively says, was in violation of the California Civil Code, section 47.1, which was a statute brought on by the MeToo Movement.

(You can read Lively’s memorandum of law in support of this 47.1 Motion to see all that she’s claiming and the megabucks she’s asking for.)

The Wayfarer parties opposed this motion, saying:

• – “No California (or Other) Court Has Addressed the Constitutional Concerns and Conflicts Apparent from the Face of Section 47.1”
• – “Plaintiff Fails to Show That Section 47.1 Or Civil Code § 3294 May Be Applied Extraterritorially”
• – “Section 47.1 Cannot Apply Where, As Here, There are No Factual Findings that Lively’s Claims Were Asserted Without Malice and With a Reasonable Basis”
• – “Plaintiff Has Not Proven that She is Entitled to Punitive Damages Under Section 3294”
• – “Plaintiff Fails to Explain How, In the Absence of Actual Damages, the Court Can Calculate Punitive or Treble Damages”

(You can read more about this in the Defendants’ response in opposition to Lively’s motion.)

So apparently, despite this settlement of her own lawsuit against the Wayfarer parties, Blake Lively still wants the judge to rule on that motion. And the Wayfarer parties are agreeable to that action.

What is interesting to note, however, is that all of the stipulating parties “irrevocably waive any appeal from the Court’s determination of the 47.1 Motion”.

So, whatever the judge decides on that issue, goes. It will be interesting to see what he does with it.

Meanwhile, although the legal court battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is nearly over, the court has not seen the last of Blake Lively.

Given Wayfarer’s ongoing legal battle within the Jones v Abel case, Blake Lively is still thinly attached to Judge Liman’s caseload through her involvement with the Vanzan sham lawsuit.

The unfolding of the Jones v Abel case should be very interesting to watch.

That is because it was the public broadcasting of the private text messages seized by Stephanie Jones from the cell phone of Justin Baldoni’s publicist, Jennifer Abel, through the New York Times hit piece in December 2024 — at the hand of Blake Lively — that set this whole Lively v Wayfarer, et al and Wayfarer, et al v Lively, et al legal drama in motion.

I hope to keep you posted on that.