It ain’t over ‘til it’s over, they say, and in the case of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni that may be never.

Lively and Baldoni are heading back to court on Monday as she seeks damages from the actor - even though their case was settled.

The actress is demanding that Baldoni, her co-star and director on the movie It Ends With Us, pay her damages over the $400million defamation lawsuit he filed against her, a lawsuit that was tossed out by the judge.

Lively wants her legal fees paid plus costs, along with triple damages and punitive damages on top.

It is not clear exactly how much the Gossip Girl star is seeking, but she and Baldoni have reportedly spent $60million on lawyers during their legal war, meaning the sum will likely be well into the millions.

Case insights

Lively had sought $160million in damages after she sued Baldoni for sexual harassment and launching a ‘smear campaign’ against her after she spoke up against his alleged conduct on the set of the movie, which was released in August 2024.

In April a judge dismissed most of her case including all the sexual harassment allegations and weeks later both sides reached a settlement with no money changing hands.

The hearing on Monday will take place at the federal court in Manhattan and each side will have half an hour to make their argument.

Had the trial gone ahead, it would have taken place midway through what was expected to be a three-week case.

Neither Lively nor Baldoni is expected to be present.

The relatively untested law that Lively is relying on was passed in 2023 in California in response to the MeToo movement and was designed to stop defamation lawsuits against those who come forward with allegations of sexual impropriety.

Baldoni filed his lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and the New York Times in January 2025, a month after she sued him.

He sought $400million in damages for what he claimed were false allegations. The case was dismissed in November last year because Lively initially made her allegations to the California Civil Rights Department meaning they were protected by privilege.

In a legal filing Lively’s lawyer Michael Gottlieb said that the relevant law allowed ‘severe and mandatory penalties against any party who files unsuccessful retaliatory defamation actions against sexual harassment and retaliation complainants.'

So long as Lively made her comments ‘without malice’, or she genuinely believed them, she should have been allowed to share her experience without fear of being sued, Gottlieb wrote.

Lively’s legal team seeks damages

He wrote: ‘The California Legislature intended for (the law) 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.'

Gottlieb called Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively the ‘prototypical suit’ that the law in question was drawn up to prevent. 

‘Thus, as the prevailing defendant, Ms Lively is entitled not just to attorneys’ fees and costs, but also compensatory damages tripled, and punitive damages,’ he wrote.

Lively’s actions have sparked alarm among some First Amendment experts who said it could put people off going to court.

Dustin Pusch, a lawyer with expertise in First Amendment cases, told the New York Times: ‘If you’ve been falsely accused of something as serious as sexual assault, sexual harassment, and you actually feel you have a strong lawsuit, this law is going to make you think twice about taking this to court and trying to defend your reputation.'

Another unusual element of the hearing is that once the judge rules, neither side has the right to appeal.

Share your thoughts with us in the comments