Latest news with #Rule15
Pink Villa
04-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Pink Villa
Blake Lively Faces Dead End in Justin Baldoni Feud: Judge Rules Out Emotional Distress Claims, Find Out Details
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's case has escalated over the months, and the progress seems to be in favor of the filmmaker. According to the new reports, the judge overseeing the case between the co-stars has declared the actress's emotional distress claims to be dead. The ruling was shared by Judge Lewis Liman after back-and-forth filings by both parties. According to the previously published reports, Lively's attorneys got back at Baldoni 's lawyers, who claimed that the mother of four tried to withdraw her lawsuit to hide her medical records. The actress's team stated, 'As the Wayfarer Parties make abundantly clear in their Motion, Ms. Lively voluntarily agreed to withdraw her infliction of emotional distress claims on Friday, May 30. Ms. Lively did so in good faith to streamline the dispute in the ordinary litigation process, given the damages she otherwise anticipates recovering.' Judge Lewis Liman's ruling As for the new ruling in the Lively vs. Baldoni case, the judge mentioned that the actress is at a dead end in changing her mind over disclosing her medical records. In the motion penned by the judge this morning, Liman stated, 'Lively's request that 'because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively's tenth and eleventh causes of action… the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice' is denied without prejudice to renewal.' He further added that either Lively reaches an agreement with Baldoni over the filing with prejudice or has the court dismiss them without prejudice. Whichever way her team chooses, she can no longer present any evidence of her emotional distress. The case between the It Ends With Us co-stars has been going on since December, months after the movie was released.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Judge Blocks Emotional Distress Evidence in Blake Lively's Case Against Justin Baldoni
Blake Lively's legal battle with Justin Baldoni has taken a sharp turn, as a federal judge has now ruled that she cannot move forward with her emotional distress claims. The decision follows a back-and-forth between both parties over Lively's refusal to release medical records. Blake Lively's legal battle with Justin Baldoni took a significant turn when a federal judge ruled that her emotional distress claims cannot proceed and barred her from presenting related evidence at trial. On Tuesday, Judge Lewis Liman ruled that her claims related to emotional distress would not move forward, after Lively's attorneys indicated they would be dropping them. The decision came in response to a motion from Baldoni's legal team, who had pushed the court to compel Lively to release private medical records, including therapy notes. Judge Lewis Liman denied the motion to compel those records, citing Lively's intent to withdraw the related claims. He wrote, 'The motion to compel … is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn.' However, the judge also made it clear that if the claims aren't formally dismissed, Lively won't be allowed to submit any evidence related to emotional distress. The judge also addressed Blake Lively's attempt to have her claims dismissed without prejudice, saying, 'Lively's request that 'because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively's tenth and eleventh causes of action…the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice' is denied without prejudice to renewal.' He further instructed both parties to either jointly 'stipulate to whether dismissal is with or without prejudice,' or have Lively submit a formal motion. Although Justin Baldoni's lawyers did not respond to the ruling, Lively's attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, issued a pointed statement. They called Baldoni's motion 'utterly pointless.' They added that while the standalone emotional distress claims are being withdrawn, Lively still plans to seek emotional distress damages through other claims in the lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation. (via Variety) Originally reported by Disheeta Maheshwari on ComingSoon. The post Judge Blocks Emotional Distress Evidence in Blake Lively's Case Against Justin Baldoni appeared first on Mandatory.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Judge Rules Blake Lively's Emotional Distress Claims Against Justin Baldoni Are Officially Dead
The judge overseeing the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni lawsuit has decided that the actress' claims for emotional distress are dead. The ruling comes after a tense back in forth between the dueling sides, with Baldoni's lawyers filing a motion to compel her to turn over her medical records and Lively fighting that move. Judge Lewis Liman wrote this morning that Baldoni's motion to compel is denied 'based on Plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn. Lively's request that 'because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively's tenth and eleventh causes of action . . . the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice' is denied without prejudice to renewal. The parties shall stipulate to whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, or Lively shall renew her request by formal motion. For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.' More from Variety Blake Lively Abandons Claims Against Justin Baldoni of Infliction of Emotional Distress Taylor Swift Excluded From Baldoni-Lively Narrative, as Subpoena Is Withdrawn Blake Lively's Lawyers Fight Back Against Taylor Swift Blackmail Accusation: 'Unequivocally and Demonstrably False' In short, Judge Liman shut down the possibility of Lively changing her mind and turning over her medical records. Lively can choose to try to reach an agreement with Baldoni about dismissing the claims with prejudice — meaning without the right to refile — or she can roll the dice and ask the judge to dismiss the claims without an agreement, in a bid to have him dismiss them without prejudice. Either way, Lively's attorneys can no longer present evidence of her emotional distress claims. On Monday, Baldoni's lawyers filed a motion seeking to compel the actress to sign a HIPAA release for access to therapy notes and other relevant information and referenced her desire to drop the claims rather than acquiesce. 'Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs, Ms. Lively's counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms. Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] Claims,' the filing stated. 'However, Ms. Lively has refused the Wayfarer Parties' reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice. She is only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice. In other words, Ms. Lively wants to simultaneously: (a) refuse to disclose the information and documents needed to disprove that she suffered any emotional distress and/or that the Wayfarer Parties were the cause; and (b) maintain the right to re-file her IED Claims at an unknown time in this or some other court after the discovery window has closed.' Lively's lawyers called the filing 'a press stunt' and filed their own response that urged the court to sanction Baldoni's attorneys for the abusing the docket and requested that the motion to compel Lively be denied and struck. 'It is based on two brazenly false assertions. First, they claim that Ms. Lively has 'refused' to disclose medical and mental health information, but as counsel for the Wayfarer Parties concede, that information is relevant only to Ms. Lively's stand-alone tort-based emotional distress claims that she indicated she was withdrawing,' the Lively filing noted. 'To suggest that Ms. Lively has 'refused' to produce anything (in either her written discovery responses, in the parties' conference, or anytime thereafter) in connection with these claims is intentionally misleading to the Court and their intended audience for this false record: the public. Second, they claim that Ms. Lively has 'refused' to properly stipulate to dismissal. But, that would suggest there was any discussion or mutually known dispute as to the stipulation. As noted, there was none.' Best of Variety What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025 New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Blake Lively's Emotional Distress Claims Are DOA, Judge Rules In Win For Justin Baldoni
The trial over Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's bitter dispute on what really happened on It Ends With Us and in the aftermath of the Sony released film doesn't start until March next year, but sometimes justice picks up the pace in the slow moving and sprawling multi-million dollar battle. As both sides took to the court docket and the media Monday to fight over how Lively would or would not withdraw her intentional emotional distress claims from her New Year's Eve filed suit against Baldoni, his Wayfarer Studios, execs and publicists, the judge shut the whole thing down Tuesday lickety-split with a rebuke of Lively's side. More from Deadline Blake Lively Insists She Is Not Dropping Emotional Distress Claims Against Justin Baldoni, Despite What His Lawyers Say & Her Lawyers Seem To Have Said Disney Layoffs Hit TV Development & Casting Executive Ranks Disney Laying Off Hundreds In TV & Film Entertainment, Corporate Finance 'The motion to compel at …is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn,' wrote Judge Lewis J, Liman this morning in a fairly brisk order. 'Lively's request that 'because the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively's tenth and eleventh causes of action… the Court exercise its inherent authority and authority under Rule 15 to dismiss them without prejudice' is denied without prejudice to renewal,' the NYC-based federal official (and brother of director Doug Liman) added. 'The parties shall stipulate to whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, or Lively shall renew her request by formal motion.' As a kicker, a day after Lively's lawyers exclaimed their client in not completely abandoning her emotional distress claims, Judge Liman made where he sits on all this perfectly clear: 'For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress. SO ORDERED' After all the hoopla of yesterday's letters to the judge and weekend email exchanges between attorneys for Lively and Baldoni, lawyers and representatives for the latter were mum Tuesday, offering a telling 'no comment' on Judge Liman's move in their favor. For Lively, who now has no window to shift strategy and release her requested medical and therapy records, there was a sidestepping of her loss and a repeat of what her team put out on Monday. 'The court denied Wayfarer's motion,' said Lively lawyers Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb in a statement Tuesday. 'He told the parties to continue their discussions about the technicalities of how 2 of the 15 claims will be voluntarily dismissed. Ms. Lively has offered to dismiss those claims because they are no longer necessary, and she will continue to pursue emotional distress damages through other claims in her lawsuit, including sexual harassment and retaliation. In addition, the Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive damages under California law. This is exactly where both parties were before the Baldoni-Wayfarer Parties rushed to file this utterly pointless motion to compel, all searching for yet another press moment.' With whispers of all not being well on the domestic violence themed IEWU, even though the pic scored at the box office, and press tour and premiere snubs, this all went public and wide when Lively on December 20 filed her sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against Baldoni and his inner circle with California's Civil Rights Department. A formal suit by her followed on December 31 with a $400 million defamation and extorsion action from the Jane the Virgin actor against Lively, her hubby Ryan Reynolds and their PR team was not long behind. In the months since, the case has ballooned to around half a dozen lawsuits, everyone trying to get dismissed from the cases and the likes of Taylor Swift, Disney, Marvel, the New York Times and others getting dragged in. Sources on both sides have repeatedly and vehemently insisted to Deadline and the courts that there is no chance of a settlement now, with the high profile Lively and Reynolds hauled way out of their carefully created comfort zone and WME-dumped Baldoni's career now dead in the water in Hollywood. The trial is set to start in NYC on March 9, 2026 in the same courthouse where the Sean 'Diddy' Combs sex-trafficking trial is taking place right now. Best of Deadline 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More Everything We Know About 'Nobody Wants This' Season 2 So Far List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More
India Gazette
22-05-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Celebi vs UoI: Govt defends decision to revoke security clearance; cites potential threats to civil aviation security
New Delhi [India], May 22 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday heard in detail the Celebi Airport Services' plea against the revocation of its security clearance by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that the government's plenary superintendence powers apply to national and airport security. He called the case a 'sui generis' situation, warranting careful judicial review due to potential threats across multiple airports. Mehta emphasised that measures preventing unlawful interference are crucial under aviation security laws, helping prevent incidents like explosions at airports or onboard aircraft. Discussing ground handling, he outlined the petitioner's role in operations and cargo, granting direct aircraft access. Most domestic flights use in-house staff, while international flights rely on contractors, making access to sensitive flight and VIP data critical. Mehta asserted that in some situations, hearings or explanations may not be feasible, justifying plenary power. He also cited rulings where freedom of speech and the right to know can be restricted when national security takes precedence. On Wednesday, Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Celebi, stated that the company had extensive operations in India, employing over 10,000 personnel across multiple airports over the last 17 years. Rohatgi argued that Celebi's security clearance, originally granted in 2022 under Rule 15 for a five-year term, was abruptly revoked without prior notice or a hearing, violating the principle of procedural fairness. He argued that the lack of transparency surrounding the reasons for this decision, suggesting that the Turkish shareholding might have influenced the government's stance. He asserted that Celebi's workforce consists of Indian nationals and that the firm is not politically affiliated with the Turkish government. Rohatagi submitted during arguments that, 'You have violated every aspect of Rule 12, affecting my business and contracts, which are now facing cancellation. The Ministry of Home Affairs has removed us, leaving us with no recourse. The decision only targets the company, while the employees remain unchanged. I firmly submit that Rule 12 has not been properly applied.' The bench of Justice Sachin Datta will hear the matter on Friday. On Monday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, defended the revocation, citing national security concerns. He highlighted intelligence inputs indicating potential risks associated with Celebi's operations, particularly in the handling of both passenger and cargo aircraft. Mehta justified withholding specific details, arguing that disclosing confidential security information could be detrimental to national interests. Recently, Union Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu assured measures to protect affected employees and maintain stability in aviation operations. The Ministry reaffirmed that the security clearance was revoked to safeguard national security while ensuring uninterrupted airport operations. (ANI)
