Blake Lively’s team hits Bardoni with Taylor Swift’s summons
Blake Lively’s team denounces Justin Bardoni’s team’s decision to summon Taylor Swift, calling it a blatant attempt to misuse Lively’s friendship for tabloid attention.
No Brands – Entertainment
Justin Bardoni’s “It Ends With Us” countersuit for Costar Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and the New York Times, were dismissed by a judge.
“It’ll end with us” director first complained to life, and after Reynolds and the era was published, claiming that Bardoni had sexually harassed her and helped her coordinate a smear campaign against her. The lawsuit was filed in late 2024 in response to Lively’s sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit.
Judge Louis Liman granted the June 9th complaint for termination from Lively’s legal team because Bardoni’s civil terror, honour and false light claims were not legally supported. However, the judge has granted Bardoni’s team another opportunity to deal with another claim by submitting a breach of implicit contract and tort interference with the contract and a second amended complaint.
Reynolds, a lively public relations officer, Leslie Sloan’s request to Bardoni was rejected without prejudice to cover the attorney’s fees.
USA Today reached out to a Baldoni representative for comment.
“Today’s opinion is Blake Lively’s complete victory and complete proof, along with Justin Bardoni and the Wayfarer Party being dragged into retaliatory lawsuits such as Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloan and The New York Times.”
“As I said from day one, this ‘$400 million’ lawsuit was fake and the court went through it,” the statement continued. “We look forward to the next round seeking attorney fees, high-pitched damages and punitive damages against Bardoni, Sarowitz, Nathan and other wayfarer parties who committed this abusive lawsuit.”
In a filing reviewed by USA Today, the judge noted that Baldoni’s complaints focused on two major claims. First, he claimed he threatened to refuse to promote “it’ll end with us” and threatened to publicly attack him if he didn’t agree to give control of the film. The complaint argued that this corresponded to a citizen’s fear tor.
However, Liman said the complaint did not adequately claim that Lively’s “threat was an unlawful tor, not a legally acceptable hard negotiation or renegotiation of working conditions.” The judge also determined that Bardoni and his fellow plaintiffs had failed to show that they were harmed by some of the live shows that they were allegedly “terrifying.”
Second, Bardoni’s complaints allegedly spread the false narrative that the vibrant Reynolds, Sloan and the Times “Bardoni ‘tuggled with the vibrantness against her and engaged in a smear campaign.’ However, the judge said the complaint did not claim that it was “liable for statements” other than those made in a privileged California Civil Rights Office complaint.
Regarding statements by Reynolds, Sloan and the Times, the judge said they did not argue that these parties were “seriously suspecting that these statements were serious based on the information available.”