A US federal judge has rejected Blake Lively's attempt to recover legal costs in her ongoing dispute with Justin Baldoni, according to court reports from Monday, marking another procedural setback in the long-running It Ends With Us legal fallout.
The ruling states that Lively is seeking to recover legal fees linked to Baldoni's countersuit, which the court also dismissed. This means the case is still being resolved after a long dispute that began with claims of on-set misconduct and escalated into a full legal fight involving defamation, retaliation claims and disagreements over how California law should apply.
This latest decision comes after the main case between Lively and Baldoni was settled just a few days before a trial was due in May 2026, ending an 18-month legal battle that moved back and forth between court filings and public statements.
Judge Blocks Further Legal Filings
The judge's decision focuses on Lively's attempt to recover legal fees connected to Baldoni's $306 million (£240 million) countersuit, which the court previously dismissed. Reporting by Complex says the judge has now refused to allow any further filings on this request, which means she cannot submit more legal arguments for now.
Lively is still seeking to recover some of her legal costs, but the ruling suggests there are limits on what can be added to the case after the main claims have already been resolved or settled. It does not determine whether she will ultimately receive those fees, only that she cannot expand her case at this stage.
The disagreement centres on a California law introduced in 2023 intended to protect people who accuse others of sexual harassment from retaliatory lawsuits. Lively's legal team argues the law should apply because JBaldoni filed his countersuit after she accused him of misconduct during the filming of It Ends With Us.
Baldoni's lawyers disagree. They say the law should not apply because key parts of the situation took place in New Jersey, where most of the film was shot, and they also argue that applying the law in this way raises constitutional issues.
So far, the court has not made a final decision on whether the California law applies, leaving the question open even though the wider legal battle between the two sides has already been settled.
Case Moves Beyond Main Court Battle
The legal dispute between the two has already gone through several stages before ending in a settlement. Lively first filed her lawsuit in December 2024, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation during the filming of It Ends With Us.
Baldoni denied the claims and responded with a $510 million (£400 million) countersuit against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, accusing them of defamation. That countersuit was later dismissed in June 2025, which was a major turning point in the case.
At the same time, parts of Lively's own lawsuit were also cut down by the court. Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed 10 of her 13 claims, including harassment and defamation allegations, leaving only a smaller set of claims related to retaliation and contract issues before everything was eventually settled.
Even after the settlement, both sides have continued to describe the outcome very differently. Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, called it a 'huge victory,' saying Lively chose to settle rather than go to trial.
Lively's legal team rejected that view, calling it a 'resounding victory' for her and arguing that settling does not mean she was in a weaker position. The two sides have kept competing narratives about what the result actually means, even after the court process ended.
In a joint statement after the settlement, both sides said the finished film remained 'a source of pride' and said they still support raising awareness about domestic violence and survivor-focused issues.
Although the main case is now resolved, the latest court decision shows that smaller disputes, especially around legal fees and how certain laws apply, are still not fully settled. So far, the court has not fully decided whether she is entitled to those fees under California law but they will not be not entertaining new arguments on it at this stage.
