r/ItEndsWithCourt

Can someone explain where Blake and Jed now stand with each other in all these legal filings.

My memory may be failing too, so that doesn't help my understanding, but as I can sort of recall (and please correct my errors) ---

I think Jed was dismissed from Lively's NY lawsuit?

Jed had filed his own lawsuit against Lively but went no where due to jurisdiction (which is really confusing). His was dismissed.

Lively on April 27 (doc 45) filed against Jed to ask for $800K attorney fees and costs under California code 47.1 and other for her defense against his lawsuit. I assume they do this since case was dismissed.

Wallace on May 11 (doc 53) file his response against the above request.

Lively on May 18 (doc 54) files her response to Jed's opposition, still talking about 47.1.

Above is on courtlistener Wallace v. Lively (1:25-cv-00163) - District Court, W.D. Texas.

Meanwhile on courtlistener Wallace v. Lively (25-51040) - Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Wallace has filed on May 15 (doc 45) an Appellant's Brief in the court of appeals --- I read this as he is asking them to reverse this dismissal of his case re jurisdiction.

So -- it seems Wallace still wants to proceed with his lawsuit against Blake???

Can judge decide on this 47.1 attorney fees stuff before Appeals Court decides on that Appellant's Brief?

(Links to the Courtlistener pages are on main page of this group.)

Edit: I'm not good at links but will try this - the Appellant Brief:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.45.0.pdf

Today was supposed to be the start of the trial. There are still some filings coming out. Let's discuss what's going on this week and how everyone feels about it. Please, remember to be kind and don't downvote. Thank you.

Jed Wallace has filed his opening appellate brief in the Fifth Cir. Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the Texas district court judge's dismissal of his defamation case against Lively.

Appellant's brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.45.0.pdf

Designated record on appeal (consisting of dismissal order + his first amended complaint): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.46.0.pdf

Full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72053912/wallace-v-lively/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

This megathread is for users to discuss all of the settlement developments. As most of what is being discussed is just speculation, please remember to not state opinion as fact. Please, try to remain civil and not downvote others. We have kept contest mode off to prevent problems with commenting. Thank you, all!

The New York Times has filed a letter to the judge in its NY state court anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Wayfarer, requesting judicial notice of the recent settlement and joint stipulation in Lively v. Wayfarer:

>Plaintiff The New York Times Company (“The Times”) respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the attached so-ordered Notice of Settlement and Joint Stipulation (the “Stipulation”), dated May 7, 2026 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al., 24-cv-10049, and Wayfarer Studios et al. v. Lively et al., 25-cv-449 (the “Consolidated Action”).

>This action by The Times seeks its attorneys’ fees under the New York anti-SLAPP statute based on the dismissal of the libel and related claims brought against The Times in the Consolidated Action by Wayfarer and affiliated parties. On January 14, 2026, The Times filed a motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) in this action. Docket No. 9. On February 27, 2026, Defendant Wayfarer Studios LLC (“Wayfarer”) opposed the Motion and requested that the Court stay this action. Docket No. 21. As a basis for the proposed stay, Wayfarer argued that it might later appeal the dismissal of the claims against The Times in the Consolidated Action. See Docket No. 30 at 2.

>However, as part of the so-ordered Stipulation, Wayfarer waived all rights to appeal any order in the Consolidated Action, including the order dismissing the claims against The Times. See Stipulation ¶ 1 (“The Stipulating Parties hereby irrevocably waive any appeal of any orders in the Consolidated Action . . . .”). As a result, the asserted basis for the stay no longer applies.

>For this reason, in addition to the reasons set out in The Times’s reply, see Docket No. 31, The Times respectfully requests that this Court adjudicate its motion for summary judgment, which is fully briefed.

Link to filing here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=u75UOipTEaDnrDmb2HRSVQ==

Further background:

Full NYT v. Wayfarer anti-SLAPP lawsuit docket: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=XRG741o7wtI7Sj20ScYGRA==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

NYT's motion for summary judgment: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=LbuPRCcg_PLUS_VnyRzFMGX2LuQ==

Wayfarer's opposition to the MSJ and cross-motion for a stay: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=FwbvSTVRwHMJ76QVHlxW7w==

NYT's reply in support of their MSJ, which argued that Wayfarer had failed to substantively oppose the MSJ on the merits (by focusing their brief only on the request for a stay because they might appeal) and therefore their opportunity to oppose should be treated as forfeited: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=p_PLUS_2emhLHxJpF2X_PLUS_OsYbQHg==

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: (1435 in 1:24-cv-10049-LJL) Letter, filed by Melissa Nathan, Jamey Heath, Justin Baldoni, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Jennifer Abel, Agency Group PR LLC, Steve Sarowitz, Wayfarer Studios LLC ENDORSEMENT: The Court does not require additional briefing at this time. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 5/11/2026) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:24-cv-10049-LJL, 1:25-cv-00449-LJL (ks) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1436.0_1.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1435.0.pdf

Earnest question and I guess I need to go and read the briefing on this:

I see folks here and in media talking points referring to “millions” of dollars in fees should Lively prevail on the motion.

But even if successful, the fees would be limited to those incurred in filing her motion to dismiss that case, trebled, no? I can see how that could literally be “millions” but I think it is a rounding error compared to the overall legal fees at issue.

That’s not to say it would be a hollow victory: I think prevailing on the motion would be PR gold for Lively, and a minor disaster for Baldoni.

Given that this is the one and only remaining issue, figured I should ask. The above is part of why it is a bit baffling to me that they were unable to settle this portion as well.