The judge previously granted motions to dismiss Baldoni’s lawsuits against the couple, their publicist and ‘The New York Times’ back in June

In a dramatic twist that has Hollywood gossip mills buzzing, Justin Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds has officially come to a halt, leaving both the acting world and legal insiders in stunned anticipation of what comes next.

Baldoni, the 41-year-old actor and co-founder of Wayfarer Studios, failed to file an amended complaint after the court dismissed his original

case back in June, prompting U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Liman to sign a final order on October 31, effectively shutting the door on his multi-million-dollar legal salvo.

While Baldoni’s lawsuit alleged defamation, extortion, and retaliation, Lively’s legal team celebrated the move as a “total victory and a

complete vindication,” underscoring the high-stakes clash of celebrity, power, and public image that has gripped fans since the saga began in December 2024.

The legal battle began when Lively sued Baldoni for alleged misconduct on the set of It Ends with Us, claiming he engaged in behavior that was both retaliatory and defamatory, charges Baldoni has consistently denied.

The counterclaims filed by Baldoni targeted Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist, asserting that the couple had orchestrated a smear campaign against him.

In addition, Baldoni had launched a $250 million defamation suit against The New York Times, also dismissed by the court, leaving him with no remaining legal recourse unless he appeals.

Judge Liman had previously warned all parties on October 17 that a final judgment would be entered if no further action was taken—a warning Baldoni ultimately did not heed.

Blake Lively responded immediately, urging the court to issue a final judgment, though she requested that her claim for legal fees remain intact, a motion the judge approved.

Speaking publicly about the ordeal, Lively expressed the emotional toll of facing Baldoni’s countersuit. “Like so many others, I’ve felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us,” she shared on Instagram after the June dismissal.

Lively framed the experience as not just personal but symbolic of a broader struggle, underscoring her commitment to advocating for every woman’s right to protect their safety, integrity, dignity, and story.

Her statement resonated widely, particularly with those who have faced similar legal or professional harassment but lack the resources to fight back against powerful figures.

Lively’s legal team hailed the court’s decision, branding Baldoni’s countersuit as a “sham” and asserting that the ruling demonstrates the court’s recognition of her position.

Attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb emphasized that the lawsuit had no legal merit from the beginning and lauded the court for seeing through Baldoni’s claims.

Meanwhile, Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, pushed back at the time, calling Lively’s victory declaration “false” and reiterating that the case revolved around what they allege to be false accusations of sexual harassment and a nonexistent smear campaign.

Freedman’s team insisted that Lively’s claims were unproven, framing the battle as an ongoing fight over reputation and narrative rather than a straightforward dismissal.

Central to the court’s decision was the application of California’s legal protections, which shield sexual harassment allegations from being used as the basis for defamation claims.

Judge Liman determined that Baldoni and his co-plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that Lively, Reynolds, or their publicist would have seriously doubted the truth of Lively’s allegations, a key factor in establishing defamation.

This legal precedent highlights the heightened scrutiny applied to public figures involved in harassment claims and reinforces protections designed to prevent retaliatory lawsuits from stifling voices speaking out about misconduct.

The legal saga, however, is far from over. Baldoni has the option to appeal the judge’s ruling, and the trial for Lively’s original lawsuit is set to begin in March 2026.

This looming court date promises to rekindle media attention, with fans and observers alike eager to see how the accusations and counterclaims unfold in a courtroom setting.

The case continues to draw significant public scrutiny, amplified by the fact that both Lively and Reynolds maintain high-profile careers, commanding media attention on and off the screen.

Public reaction has been polarized, with some applauding the court’s decision as a victory for women standing up to powerful figures, while others question how celebrity influence and media attention intersect with legal accountability.

Lively’s Instagram post following the June dismissal illustrated her awareness of the broader implications, highlighting not only her personal vindication but also the systemic challenges faced by individuals confronting retaliation in professional and legal arenas.

“I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you,” Lively wrote, sharing resources for organizations supporting victims of harassment, signaling her intent to transform personal experience into public advocacy.

Baldoni, for his part, has remained resolute in denying any wrongdoing and characterizing the litigation as a fight for reputation.

His initial claims painted a picture of defamation and retaliation that, according to his legal team, sought to correct what they perceived as a false narrative propagated by Lively and her associates.

The dismissal of his countersuit represents a significant setback, yet the appeal option leaves open the possibility of further courtroom drama, leaving Hollywood watchers bracing for additional developments in what has already become one of the most sensational legal conflicts in recent celebrity history.

This case not only underscores the intensity of celebrity legal battles but also highlights the intersections of power, public perception, and legal strategy in high-profile disputes.

With Lively’s original claims continuing toward trial, the story remains a potent mix of legal intrigue, personal narrative, and media spectacle—ensuring that fans, journalists, and legal analysts will continue dissecting each new development with a magnifying glass.

As the March 2026 trial approaches, the industry and the public alike are watching closely, anticipating revelations that could redefine reputations and set new precedents for how misconduct and defamation claims are handled among Hollywood’s elite.

In the end, while the judge’s order officially ended Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit, the broader narrative of accusation, denial, and

vindication remains alive, capturing the attention of a world eager for drama, justice, and the next chapter in this unfolding celebrity courtroom saga.