Just when it looked like the bitter legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni had finally cooled off, the former “It Ends With Us” co-stars are heading back to court. Lively and Baldoni are set to appear in a Manhattan federal courtroom on Monday, where the actress is seeking damages tied to Baldoni’s now-dismissed $400 million defamation lawsuit, despite the pair previously reaching a settlement.

The latest courtroom showdown comes after months of legal drama between Lively and Baldoni, who worked together on “It Ends With Us,” the film adaptation that hit theaters in August 2024. Justin Baldoni not only co-starred alongside Blake Lively in the movie, but also directed the project.

Blake Lively Wants Legal Fees, Triple Damages, And More

According to the Daily Mail, legal filings show Lively is requesting that Baldoni cover her legal fees and court costs tied to the defamation case he filed against her. But that’s not all. The actress is also reportedly seeking treble and punitive damages after a judge tossed Baldoni’s lawsuit. While the exact dollar amount has not been made public, the financial stakes could be massive.

Both Lively and Baldoni have reportedly spent around $60 million combined on attorneys throughout their legal war, meaning any awarded damages could climb well into the millions.

The courtroom fight marks another dramatic turn in a dispute that first exploded after Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and claimed he launched a “smear campaign” against her after she allegedly raised concerns about his behavior on set.

Lively initially sought $160 million in damages in her lawsuit against Baldoni.

What Happened To Blake Lively’s Original Case?

In April, a judge dismissed most of Lively’s claims, including all allegations related to sexual harassment. Just weeks later, the two sides reached a settlement, with no money changing hands.

“The end product, the movie ‘It Ends With Us,’ is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors and all survivors is a goal that we stand behind,” a joint statement read.

It continued, “We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”

Still, the legal battle wasn’t entirely over.

Inside Monday’s High-Stakes Court Hearing

Monday’s hearing, scheduled in Manhattan federal court, will reportedly give each side just 30 minutes to present arguments. Had the case gone to a full trial, the proceedings were expected to stretch over roughly three weeks.

Neither Lively nor Baldoni is expected to attend the hearing in person.

The California Law At The Center Of The Dispute

At the center of Lively’s latest legal push is a relatively new California law passed in 2023 in response to the MeToo movement. The law was designed to shield people who come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct from retaliatory defamation lawsuits.

Baldoni filed his $400 million lawsuit against Lively, her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times in January 2025, just one month after Lively first sued him. He alleged the accusations against him were false and damaging to his reputation. However, the case was later dismissed because Lively had initially brought her allegations to the California Civil Rights Department, which meant her statements were legally protected.

Why Blake Lively’s Legal Team Believes Justin Baldoni’s Lawsuit Should Backfire

In a legal filing, Lively’s attorney Michael Gottlieb argued that the law allows “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 genuinely believed them to be true, Gottlieb argued she should have been able to share her experience without fear of legal retaliation. 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 also described Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively as the “prototypical suit” that the legislation was created to stop. “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.

Adding even more pressure to Monday’s hearing, neither side is expected to have the right to appeal once the judge delivers a decision.