Notice of settlement: S.47.1 remedies are still on the table and Lively has already filed to collect

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:01]Hey guys. So, um, we've now got the notice of settlement and joint stipulation.

[00:00:06]Um, you're not going to be happy. I'm not happy actually. Normally, I'm singing the praises of Wayfairer and the legal council, but on this one, I don't know what they're thinking. I'm sure there'd be a plan. Um, but I don't know what it is, so therefore, I can't make sense of it and explain it.

[00:00:25]So, let's go through this.

[00:00:28]Pursuant to the settlement agreement and through their undersigned council, Blake Lively on the one hand and Wayfair Studios Ends was Movie and Joseph Baldoni, Jamie Heave, Steve Sarret, Tag, Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Ael on the other hand, the Wayfair parties collectively hereby stipulate and agree as follows with respect to the above captioned action. So that'll be both the lively action which is this one has that has just settled and the wayfairer action which is wayfairer's complaint that was dismissed.

[00:01:03]So here's what they have agreed to and I'm a I'm pissed off so if you're not I'm going to be really surprised.

[00:01:11]One, the stipulated parties hereby irreicably wave any appeal of any orders in the consolidated action, including without limitation any appeal by the wayfairer parties of the order on the motion to dismiss. So, they're all saying, "Right, we're not going to appeal." Then, that includes um Wayf Farer. They're now not appealing their dismissed claim.

[00:01:37]But here's the stupid bit, and it is stupid.

[00:01:41]Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the stipulating parties acknowledge and agree that Blake Lively does not release and retains all claims, rights, and remedies in connection with her pending motion for attorneys fees, tribal damages, and punitive damages under California Civil Code section 47.1 in the Wayfairer action. The stipulating parties agree that the mot that the se the stipulating parties agree that the 47.1 motion is not withdrawn and remains pending before this court. The stipulating parties further agree that they hereby irrevocably wave any appeal from the court's determination of the 47.1 motion.

[00:02:26]The lively action is dismissed with prejudice as between the distipulating parties pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 41A1 A2.

[00:02:36]Um, okay. So, not I know I would have thought that as part of any agreement with Lively, they would have said, "Hey, get rid of that motion. Take that off the table."

[00:02:49]Right. They have not done that. And not only have they not done that, they've agreed that in the event that Judge Lyman awards her all of those fees, they do not, they wave the right to appeal it.

[00:03:05]And then interestingly, as I was just setting up to record this video about that motion, Lively has already filed a supplemental um letter regarding the 47.1 fees. Like it's almost like they had this ready to go.

[00:03:25]So, let's read this.

[00:03:28]Sorry, I'm quite annoyed and I'm I'm struggling to get my words out today, but I'm really surprised at this because I said I was convinced that if they have agreed to walk away and shut this down, they had the upper hand WFER did. So, they surely would have stipulated that the 47.1 motion would have been off the table.

[00:03:49]And I was hoping not just for WF Faraher, but also in the Jed Wallace action as well, Lively would just be like, you know, okay, done, dusted. We all walk away.

[00:04:02]But nope. So, I genuinely can't see what's in it for Wayf Farer.

[00:04:10]I know there's some there's I've seen news articles saying no money's changed hands.

[00:04:16]I've seen people sort of speculating, oh, she's paid him a hundred million, but to be honest, if she's awarded all those damages, treble damages, attorneys costs and fees and everything, then he'll be handing it straight back and possibly more.

[00:04:32]So, why would you do this? I don't understand this move. And um I'll need to think about it. I'm sure as I always do, I'll go away and probably sleep on it for a night or two and then I'll be like light bulb and have a moment where I'm like, "Okay, maybe they've done it for that." And I'll come back and I'll share that in a separate video. But right now, I'm I'm shocked.

[00:04:56]I'm annoyed. I'm I'm actually fuming really because I I just can't I can't explain it in this moment. And I hate things I can't explain.

[00:05:08]Um, and when I say I can't explain it, I mean I literally see no benefit to Wayf Farer for this at all.

[00:05:17]It is not what I would have done if I was the attorney. I would have been like, "No, you get rid of that lady or we're going to take our chances in the court."

[00:05:26]Um, okay. So, this is uh Lively's letter, her um supplemental letter on the 47.1 FE motion. Dear Judge Lyman, as the court is aware, plaintiff and consolidated defendant Blake Liby on the one hand and defend, we know who they all are, have executed a settlement agreement resolving nearly all claims pending in the consolidated action as captioned above.

[00:05:54]As reflected in the notice of settlement and joint stipulation filed earlier today, the parties have fully and finally resolved all claims in the consolidated action except one. The only remaining claim is Miss Lively's claim for attorney's fees and costs, compensatory damages automatically tripled by statute, and punitive damages under California Civil Code section 47.1, which the parties have submitted to this court to adjudicate with no right of appeal.

[00:06:26]Section 47.1 imposes severe and mandatory penalties against any party who files unsuccessful retalit defamation actions against sexual harassment and retaliation complainants.

[00:06:38]Under section 47.1, any communication made by an individual without malice regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, including retaliation, is privileged so long as the speaker has or at any time had a reasonable basis to file a complaint of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, whether the complaint is or was filed or not.

[00:07:06]Section 47.1 was designed to ensure individuals subjected to sexual harassment or retaliation can share their experiences with courts, agencies, the press, and others without fear of suit. Um, I'm just going to highlight this so I can come back to this because there's um a point I probably will want to make to that.

[00:07:32]Um, the California legislature enacted this privilege to provide a clear, unambiguous pathway to justice for victims of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination.

[00:07:46]Specifically, the California legislature intended for section 47.1 to deter litigation that would otherwise force survivors to defend against a long and expensive retaliatory defamation lawsuit by imposing significant remedies for successful defendants in defamation claims.

[00:08:06]Moreover, because section 47.1 protects victims from the litigation itself, these remedies must be available at the earliest stage, typically through a motion to dismiss to protect survivors from a punishing protracted legal process.

[00:08:21]And I think that was kind of uh that was a moot point really, although she pushed it like she was in her own litigation. She filed her own lawsuit. So it wouldn't, you know, given her the money at the earlier stage would not have protected her from a, you know, protracted legal process because, you know, she was in it herself.

[00:08:42]Um, consistent with section 47.1 stated purpose, Miss Lively respectfully requests that her motion be resolved as promptly as possible.

[00:08:51]No doubt remains that the Wayfair party suit is the proto protottypical suit that the California legislature intended to short circuit by enacting section 47.1.

[00:09:02]The alleged defamatory statements that formed the basis of the Wayfairer party's brutality lawsuit satisfy all elements of privilege under section 47.1 for reasons that have already been raised to this court. Thus, as the prevailing defendant, which she technically is, Miss Lively is entitled not just to attorney's fees and costs, but also to compensatory damages tripled and punitive damages.

[00:09:31]Okay, I'm just one second.

[00:09:37]Okay. And before I go further, I am going to just dissect a little bit of that. So, let's go back up here. So long as the speaker has or at any time had a reasonable basis to file a complaint of sexual harassment, um, assault, harassment, or discrimination, whether the complaint is or was filed or not.

[00:09:54]Um, so there's a couple of things going on here. Um, the statement first of all, the joint public statement with that sentence we all did not like. Um, you know, Miss Lively had a right to have her concerns heard. Okay.

[00:10:11]Um, I think that may be twisted. I think that may be about to be twisted.

[00:10:17]Um, and obviously she pulled the plug. I mean, Wayf Farer, again, it is only for the purposes of trial. So, she I'm sure Lively will try, but it cannot be used here to justify anything. But the stipulation that Wayfairer agreed that she had engaged in protected activity for the purpose of the trial, you know, it's going to have lively fans if nothing else. sort of like, oh, see, he's and it did at the time, but this will, you know, throw it all together. Um, but the big thing here is this this bit that I've I've highlighted, right, the actual statute itself. And the question is is what is judge Lyman likely to say on this? But is he likely to say that Lively has or any time had a reasonable basis to believe, you know, to file a complaint of sexual harassment? Did she have a reasonable basis to believe that she had been sexually harassed? And to be honest, he's already answered it in his um in his motion on the summary judgement from the 2nd of April. He has already answered it.

[00:11:28]Good faith basis.

[00:11:41]A reasonable jury could conclude that lily opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment by complaining about inappropriate behavior.

[00:11:54]There we go.

[00:11:58]And then he goes on by the way to say the way parties have not specifically contested Lively subjective belief that she was discriminated against and there is sufficient evidence suggesting that she felt she had been. And then after this order it was all about well she had she believed that she was she believed that she was because that that's enough that's enough.

[00:12:24]um going by the language of the California Civil Code statute of section 47.1. That's all she needs.

[00:12:34]And I think that Lyman will grant this.

[00:12:40]And I think it makes me sit here and wonder what's the fucking point?

[00:12:47]Why have we all done this?

[00:12:52]Okay, so I am going to continue.

[00:12:57]Um, okay.

[00:13:14]Yes. So, I've done that and I've done that. Okay. So, continue. The parties briefed this issue previously with said briefing completed as of September 29th, 2025.

[00:13:25]Those briefs included proposed procedures for determining the damages, attorney's fees, and cost to which Miss Lively is entitled. Because the factual record has developed further since that time up to the eve of trial in Lively v Wayfairer is Miss Lively respectfully request leave to file a short supplemental brief of five pages or fewer to address any impact of the court's intervening rulings since the 47.1 motion was filed and to propose procedures for adjudicating the compensatory and punitive damages attorneys fees and costs issues in light of these developments.

[00:14:06]Miss Lively respectfully requests that any such brief be submitted by no later than 7 days of the court granting leave.

[00:14:14]Um, and there we go. It was practically ready to go as soon as the stipulation to settle was filed. Honestly, within minutes this dropped, too. And I am human. I'm absolutely fizzing about this because I'm very much um a believer that Wayfair are doing what they think is right for them, right? But I just feel like this is they're screwed now, right? And it pisses me off because the case um was so much in their favor. And a lot of that has actually come from hard work of sleuths as well, the internet sleuths, the content creators.

[00:15:03]And you know we all worked together along with all the the attorneys for WFER. We' all really worked hard found you know the evidence that would have refuted her claims her allegations um proved what you know that she was an asshole and people retaliated. people were, you know, it was an organic backlash because people did not like her.

[00:15:30]And it just really pisses me off because I know a lot of us did not like the order on the motion for summary judgement because of comments like that from the judge and it gave kind of a a hint that you know he could there's a really strong chance he could grant this section 47.1 motion but I would have as part of a settlement I would not have walked away for less than taken in this motion off the table. And I don't know if I'll ever have the answer in my head, like come to a an understanding of why Wayf Farer made this choice. And I'm sure they have got a reason, but I cannot see it. And I just can't see any benefit to them whatsoever for this.

[00:16:19]Maybe they just thought we'll we'll take the hit, but it feels like why did we all put in that work then?

[00:16:30]You know, cuz we really believed in in Wayf Farer, all of the Wayf Farer parties.

[00:16:36]Why would they just throw that hard work and that strong belief just throw it away and and cave on this?

[00:16:47]Um, it's not my case and I'm not a party in the case and I I know all too well how hard it is. So, I'm not having um, you know, I'm I'm I'm not like having a go at Wayfair or their council in any way, shape, or form. I still fully support them. Still stand by them 100%.

[00:17:07]Um, you know, at the end of the day, what have we done all this for? Well, we we proved how much of an asshole Lively and Reynolds are. We really did. We We uncovered all of that and the ugly side of Hollywood and its deep, dark, murky inner workings.

[00:17:28]But I think I'm just disappointed cuz I feel like I can see what's coming next.

[00:17:32]And it it I just wish I part of me wants them to have just taken it off the table, not even go to trial. Like this is not about, you know, you should have stuck it out and gone to trial. this was she could have just stood your ground, made her wave this right or she has to go to trial and you know defend the indefensible and we all knew that she had no case.

[00:18:00]Um I you know I feel like they had the leverage and and they kind of missed an opportunity here and I don't know why.

[00:18:10]Um I'm going to go away and think about it. Um, let me know what you think in the comments though, guys.