Ryan Reynolds Seeks Dismissal of Justin Baldoni’s $400 Million Lawsuit, Citing First Amendment Rights and Lack of Factual Basis

Ryan Reynolds has officially filed a motion to dismiss the $400 million lawsuit brought against him by Justin Baldoni, escalating an already complex legal battle involving Reynolds’ wife, Blake Lively, and Baldoni. The lawsuit, filed by Baldoni in January, accuses Reynolds and Lively of civil extortion, defamation, and other offenses. Reynolds’ legal team is arguing that Baldoni’s claims, particularly those relating to defamation, lack a sufficient factual basis and infringe upon Reynolds’ First Amendment rights to express his opinion.

At the heart of Reynolds’ motion is the allegation that he allegedly referred to Baldoni as a "predator." Baldoni’s lawsuit contends that this constitutes defamation. However, Reynolds’ legal team counters that for such a statement to be legally defamatory, Baldoni must prove that Reynolds did not genuinely believe the statement to be true. They argue that the evidence presented in Baldoni’s complaint suggests the opposite – that Reynolds sincerely holds the belief that Baldoni’s behavior is indicative of a "predator."

In documents obtained by Fox News Digital, Reynolds’ lawyers, Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, stated, "The entirety of Mr. Baldoni’s case appears to be based on Mr. Reynolds allegedly privately calling Mr. Baldoni a ‘predator,’ but here is the problem, that is not defamation unless they can show that Mr. Reynolds did not believe that statement to be true." They emphasize that the complaint lacks any allegations suggesting Reynolds doubted the truth of his statement, and instead, points to the opposite conclusion.

The legal team underscores the fact that Lively has accused Baldoni, both privately and in multiple complaints, of sexual harassment and retaliation. They also highlight Baldoni’s past public admissions regarding his mistreatment of women and his own acknowledgment of pushing the boundaries of consent. Reynolds’ motion posits that, given these circumstances, he is entitled to express his opinion of Baldoni, a right protected by the First Amendment.

Reynolds’ legal team frames Baldoni’s lawsuit as an attempt to damage Reynolds’ reputation, suggesting that he was included in the suit strategically. They critique the suit as lacking specific details and failing to adequately substantiate the claims of extortion and interference with a contract. They contend that the lawsuit fails to identify the specific contract allegedly interfered with, the provisions breached, or the parties involved. Furthermore, they argue that the suit inadequately explains the alleged $400 million in damages, including who suffered the loss, the proportion of the loss, the specific claims related to the loss, and the proximate cause of the losses.

The motion to dismiss is particularly critical of what it deems the lack of factual support for Baldoni’s claims. It asserts that the lawsuit is "long on hyperbole, prose, and ‘claims,’ but devoid of any facts necessary to state ones recognized by law." Reynolds’ legal team characterizes the lawsuit as a "burn book filled with grievances" aimed at shaming Reynolds for supporting his wife and standing by her in the face of her allegations against Baldoni.

The genesis of this complex legal battle lies in Lively’s initial lawsuit against Baldoni, which stemmed from their involvement in the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s novel, "It Ends With Us." Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and alleged that he participated in a smear campaign to damage her reputation following the film’s release.

In response, Baldoni filed his $400 million lawsuit against Lively and Reynolds, alleging torment of him, his family, and colleagues. He also alleges that Reynolds used the "Deadpool" character, "Nicepool," to mock him, pointing to the character’s appearance and certain comments as evidence of a deliberate attempt to link "Nicepool" to Baldoni. Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, previously stated that there was "no question" the character related to Justin, citing the "hair bun" and a "comment about the pregnancy" as evidence.

Reynolds’ motion to dismiss directly addresses this allegation, arguing that including him in the lawsuit is simply an attempt to tarnish his reputation. The lawsuit accuses Reynolds of extortion but fails to demonstrate any exchange of money or property. Furthermore, the accusation of interfering with a contract lacks specificity regarding the contract itself, its breached provisions, or the parties involved. The $400 million damage claim is also criticized for lacking a clear explanation of who suffered the loss, the proportion of the loss, the claims associated with the loss, and the direct cause of the losses.

The legal battle between Reynolds, Lively, and Baldoni highlights the complexities of defamation law and the protection afforded by the First Amendment. Reynolds’ motion to dismiss hinges on the argument that his statements about Baldoni are protected opinions, particularly given the existing allegations of harassment and Baldoni’s own past statements. The outcome of this motion will likely set the tone for the remainder of the legal proceedings. The judge in the case will need to consider the strength of Baldoni’s defamation claim, the evidence supporting Reynolds’ belief in the truth of his statement, and the broader implications of limiting free speech in the context of public accusations and personal opinions. This case promises to be a closely watched legal drama with significant implications for both the individuals involved and the broader legal landscape.