Judge Dismisses Justin Baldoni's $400 Million Countersuit Against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds

It looks like "It Ends With Us" may actually end with a judge who recently decided to dismiss Justin Baldoni's $400 million countersuit against costar Blake Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds.

The director had brought his countersuit against the "Gossip Girl" alum after she had filed her own lawsuit, accusing him of sexual harassment and body shaming on the set of the romantic drama.

On June 9, Judge Lewis J. Liman decided to dismiss Justin Baldoni's countersuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist, as well as his lawsuit against The New York Times.

Baldoni and his Wayfarer banner filed a $400 million lawsuit against Lively and Reynolds, alleging extortion and defamation. They also filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Times, claiming biased reporting.

Even though the judge dismissed the initial filing, he did note that Baldoni's legal team can still amend the claims for breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with their contract, if they choose to do so. Baldoni's team has been given until June 23 to make those changes.

"The Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements in her CRD complaint, which are privileged," Judge Liman wrote in the opinion obtained by PEOPLE Magazine.

The order filing went on to say, "The Wayfarer Parties have alleged that Reynolds and [publicist Leslie] Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer Parties of engaging in a smear campaign. But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane or the Times would have seriously doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law."

The judge added, "The Wayfarer Parties’ additional claims also fail. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety."

In another strange twist to the headline-making legal drama, Lively decided to drop two of her claims last week: intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Her legal team insisted that the move was a "routine part of the litigation process" for "streamlining and focusing" their case against the director, which is set to go to trial next year.

Both Lively and Baldoni are expected to take the stand and testify. At one point, it was widely believed that Lively's close friend Taylor Swift might also be forced to testify, but that came to a quick end last month after his team decided to drop her subpoena.

On May 22, Justin Baldoni’s legal team withdrew its subpoena against Swift weeks after they had filed paperwork seeking information about how involved the "Cruel Summer" singer was in the creative process of the film.

Deadline was the first to report the news after Baldoni's legal team claimed that Lively's team tried to force Swift into issuing a statement of public support by threatening to release years of private text messages between the two former friends if her demands were not met. Lively's rep immediately slammed the insinuation as "categorically false."

Swift’s team responded to the legal update with “no comment," although her rep had a blistering response when news of the subpoena first made headlines.

Although Swift gave her permission to allow one of her songs to be used in the movie's soundtrack and trailer, her rep insisted that this was the beginning and end of her involvement in the film, stating:

"Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film, she did not even see It Ends With Us until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history."

"The connection Taylor had to this film was permitting the use of one song, 'My Tears Ricochet,’” the statement continued. "Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case."