← No Filter With Zack Peter
No Filter With Zack Peter
Blake Lively Officially LOSES Baldoni Lawsuit, Ryan Reynolds Acclaimed by Forbes
01:16:00
Loading summary
Transcript10 lines
- [00:02]
A
This Father's Day at Lowe's, we have extra big deals for a very limited time so you can get dad the gift he's been wishing for. Get a free select Craftsman Dewalt or cobalt battery when you buy a select combo kit. Plus save $90 on a Kobalt 24 volt battery, string trimmer and leaf blower combo kit. Now $129. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Ballot through 615 while supplies last selection varies by location. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
- [00:52]
B
Support for this podcast comes from Progressive, America's number one motorcycle insurer. Did you know Writers who switch and save with Progressive save nearly $200 per year. That's a whole new pair of writing gloves and more. Quote today. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $197 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between October 2024 and September 2025. Potential saving what's going on everybody? So much news we just got slapped with. Did we just find the lady? What happened with Nancy Guthrie? We got a new anonymous tip that may blow the lid on where Nancy Guthrie is. Plus Blake Lively. She may be licking some wounds tonight, but Judge Lyman did throw her a couple of pennies. We're going to get into all of it. I hope you're ready for it. Let's dive in. This is no Filter with Zach Peter your go to source for all the latest pop culture and reality T DVT Surf Fresh all week long. Now let's dive in. What's up guys? Welcome on in. Welcome on in. Welcome on in. How's it going? Everybody in the club? What's up? Happy Friday. It's Friday. Friday. Gonna get down on Friday. It is Friday, my dudes. What's up? I love you. I appreciate you. You guys have been leaving sweet apple reviews and sweet DMs and I just want to say thank you. I really appreciate you. Truly I do. I want you to hear that and I hope you believe me when I say that I did not just fall out of a coconut tree. And I just wanna say thank you for the nice, the really sweet messages. I haven't been able to get through all of them or respond to all of them, but just know I feel the love. I receive the love. And it feels good with that love. Carrying that into my birthday weekend. My birthday's on Monday, and I'm excited. So thank ya, everybody in the club. I love ya. Okay, it's funny. I saw this. I went to our local wine bar last night, and I had a little wine, a little pizza with the dogs, and I came across this video. It was actually a Madea video. And it's funny because Medea, my great grandmother, she passed away. Not last year, the year before 2024, summer of 2024, or, like, early fall. She passed away. And she loved Madea. Like, loved Madea. And so growing up, we would always watch the Madea movies. And she would always. Because, like, I remember I've joked about Limewire and how I would allegedly illegally burn CDs as a kid. And she would always do the pirated movies. She would, like. I don't know. I mean, listen, we grew up in the hood. And so she would go, like, you know, like, at CVS or whatever, there would be, like, guys that would be, like, selling the bootleg, the pirated movies that were still in theaters, and she would always end up buying them, and they always ended up being a Medina movie. Sorry, I went on a random tangent for no reason, but I think it was I. Yesterday, I kind of just felt very surrounded by, like, spiritual love, if that makes sense. Like, I felt like my angels were around me. And I consider it's part of what my tattoo means here with the anchor and the compass. I always said that my grandmother, not my great grandmother, who I was just speaking about, but my grandmother, I always felt like she was my anchor. And then she passed away. And now I feel like she. And the people I've lost since then feel like my compass. Including my great grandmother and my grandmother and my grandfather and. And even Jeff, all of who I've lost in the last couple years, very big losses that have. Have gone in the last couple of years. But it just. As I was reflecting upon the Medea video, I made that connection right now. But the video was basically saying how I hope I'm not butchering it, but how you're like a tree and the people in your life. A lot of. Most of leaves, right? And they're there temporarily. They blow with the wind. Some of them are there just to shade you temporarily. And then you have the people in your life that are the branches. And the branches seem to be there. They appear to be the ones that are strong and by your side, right? And then if you step on them or you put a little pressure on a branch, it's likely going to snap off, right. It can't sustain it. And, you know, they're there for a little longer than the leaves, and they seem to be a little sturdier than the leaves. They're not as fickle. The wind can't blow them left or right. But eventually they can break right. And when there's enough pressure put on them, they do and will break. But where you really are lucky is if you have the roots. And the roots are the real people in your life. Those are the ones that are anchored to you, those are the ones that keep you grounded, those are the ones that don't leave. And those are the ones that can only get taken out when you get yanked out, too. And, you know, you just, you go through those phases and you realize, and I think, I'm sure as many of you are starting to reflect upon your own lives, which parts or which people in your life are the leaves, are the branches and are the roots? And I taped a bonus episode for Super Cast yesterday. I didn't release it, but I did tape it, and I don't think I will release it. I'll probably tape another one with, you know, now that I've slept, reflected, ran, lifted, and like, you know, got my body moving. Let's see. Paige says, Zach, I can't wait to hear your thoughts on the late ramen votes all being a yes and increasing the sales tax. I mean, listen, Paige, I've gone off about that a lot on the Instagram. Yeah. What you're saying is the. Which a lot of people have noticed is that all of the late mail in ballots that came in that happened to for Nithya Raman also happened to raise our sales tax up to 10.25%, which is crazy. I think it was like nine point something, 9.7, if I'm not mistaken, of what it currently is. And now it's been all of those late mail in ballots suddenly voted to raise the sales tax. But, you know, as much as people think I'm dumb and I'm not very smart, I'm not going to go on any rants today. But as much as people think that I'm dumb and I'm not very smart, I actually have learned a lot about our systems here in California, and it's very enlightening. Jill, just say that. That said, let's get into what you're here for. And that's the Blake Lively and the Ryan Reynolds and the Justin Baldoni it has finally ended. This is it, guys. We have officially ended. We have Zach looking great. Thank you, Charlene. I appreciate that. So sweet of you. But what I will say is. Oh, and the weeds that choke you out like a Bible voice. Thank you. No Zactivation. I don't know. Listen, you know, it's not very hard to get me Zacktivated. Zactivation Nation. Ooh, maybe that'll be our next tour. We had the Zactivated tour. Well, I think. Are we growing? Are we excelling? From the Zach pack to the Zactivation Nation. What? Say what? Elizabeth says you have built a strong foundation. I have. All of which you guys are that foundation that keeps me going. Keeps me going, Growing, growing. Okay, but before we get into the. The damages and what Judge Lyman has awarded Lively, I did want to let you guys know that Forbes just published their Forbes 250, and it is acknowledging the immigrants of our country. They have, I believe, 200. Oh, I guess it's 250 as in the. The year, because it's two. It's our 250th birthday. And so not only are they acknowledging that it's America's birthday, but they're highlighting the immigrants that make America so great. And you guys are going to love who they decided to put on the COVID of this magazine. The immigrant that represents the face of America is none other than Ryan Reynolds. Look at that, guys. This is the American dream right here. This is who Forbes is crediting with the. The face of the American dream. Ryan Reynolds. The one and only. Remember when Blake Lively was titan of the year time 100, Titan of 2025, because they just thought she was so amazing. Now we have Ryan Reynolds as the face of the immigrants in the US the white dude from Canada represents all the brown people. Not even just the brown people. All the. All the people from other nations, all the people from other countries that have come here for a better life. Right? This. This is. This is the American dream right here. Ryan Reynolds. I mean, listen, it's something to aspire to, right? He's got a lot of money, and he's clearly got a lot of power and influence. So, like, we should all want to have that level of power and influence. Yeah. It says Ryan Reynolds celebrating the American dream. Ryan Reynolds turned star power into business success. That is where you think, I just fell out of a coconut tree. If you're trying to say because he was a celebrity and he built business success. That. That. That's just. So did Jessica Elba. So did Gwyneth Paltrow. Oh, but Ryan Reynolds is from Canada. So because he's from Canada, that that's what we're gonna go. Okay. Beyond Hollywood, the Canadian, the Canada born actor invested in aviation Gin and Mint Mobile, two companies that by Diageo and T Mobile respectively. He is featured on the Forbes 250America's Most Successful living immigrants list. Wow. Wow. Bethany. Wow. Hill Chat says. So does Ryan need a hide from ice? Yeah, I guess so, right? I mean everybody knows how hard the struggle is for Canadians. I know. I mean listen, immigrating from. From the US or to the US From Canada. From Kannada. Wow. Wow. Like that was a struggle, you know, when he came over that border with just a backpack and five bucks in his pocket, you know that what he built, I mean, what I tell you, they just play in our faces these days. Like they're just like posting this shit and they're like laughing at us. Like this is honestly quite hysterical. Like truly, truly hysterical. Cat says, who looked at this and thought I have a great idea, right? Like what? That's crazy. Such an immigrant. I know the struggle is real. Oh my God. Forbes is a joke. No, Forbes is not a joke. They're just clearly a paid, you know, a paid hack. It's wild, wild, wild, wild. Heather says sure. That American dream. Use lawfare to go after people that tell you no. Yeah, you know, it's just policy and procedure. Says as a Canadian, I want to unclaim him. You guys can we do. He's ours. He's our. He's the face of immigrants in this country. Ryan Reynolds, the rich famous white dude from Canada is representing immigrants of America. He is quintessential of the American dream. Not the dude that came here, you know, with no money in his pocket and wanted to create a better life for his family and started a small business and became a pillar in his community and worked his way up and built a business that is something that is providing for him and his family and really feeds and gives back to the community. Not that immigrant, right? No, not him. Ryan Reynolds, the face of immigrants. Wow. What a way to celebrate our country. Tommy says Elon Musk would have been better. I mean, at least he's contributed something to society outside of Mint Mobile. But you know, you go Mint Mobile, what a time. He's the poster child for immigrants. I know it's crazy like, like when people think of the American dream and immigrants working hard to make something great for themselves and their family and to create a good life. I always think Ryan Reynolds. Oh, well, that was a fun laugh today. Right, um, let's take a quick ad break and then we will get into what Lyman has officially ruled on. Blake versus Baldoni. We've all been there. Hunger strikes and you're exhausted. There's something healthy in the fridge, maybe the pantry that you should be making, but you just don't have it in you. For me, eating healthy isn't a willpower problem. It's a setup problem. Until I found Factor, I love me some Factor because it's super easy and convenient. They send it right to my door, and I don't have to think of the question that plagues us all, and that's what's for dinner or what's for lunch? I know I'm stocked with Factor. Factor has meals built around your goals, whether that's weight loss, overall nutrition, more protein, or GLP1 support for strength and recovery workouts. You can check out Factor's Muscle Pro Collection Protein. Every meal is crafted with functional ingredients. I'm talking lean proteins, colorful veggies, whole foods, and healthy fats. Fresh, never frozen, ready in two minutes. Factor shops, preps, cooks, and delivers straight to your door so you have more time for everything. You love this spring. I love Factor. I know you're gonna love it too. So I'm telling you, head to FactorMeals.com NoFilter50OFF and use code NoFilter50OFF. That's no filter. 50 off to get 50% off and free daily greens per box with new subscription only while supplies last until September 27, 2026. See website for more details. People ask me all the time, what is your skincare routine? What is your secret? My secret is Merit Beauty. Because let's be honest, if a routine takes than five minutes is not happening. And that's why Merit Beauty believes that great makeup should be effortless. Their clean, thoughtfully curated essentials help you get a fresh, polished look in minutes with products that you can swipe on, blend with your fingers, and move on with your day. Merit is a minimalist beauty brand that makes elevated makeup and skin care designed to help you look put together in minutes. I'm wearing their tinted spf. I wear it daily. You're seeing it right here, right now. One of my faves. And if you want a no makeup day, no problem. Merit's Great Skin Serum is all you need. I love this one too. I wear this one at night. The best part is that Merit's products are clean, vegan, cruelty free, and made with nourishing skincare ingredients that leave your skin looking better long after taking off your makeup. It's time for your makeup and your skincare to meet the reality of your daily routine with Merit Beauty. Right now, Merit Beauty is offering listeners their signature makeup bag with your first order@meritbeauty.com that's merit M E R I T to get your free signature makeup bag with your first order. Merit beauty.com
- [17:08]
A
youm're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
- [17:47]
C
As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like with Progressive. Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes@progressive commercial.com progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates discounts not available in all states or situations.
- [18:17]
B
All right, let's get it. Blake and Beldoni has officially come to an end. Yay. But actually before that, really quickly, Nancy Guthrie. There is a report that has just come out that there was an anonymous tip that was given, I believe to Mexican authorities and there was a report that they know or they they have found Nancy Guthrie's grave. They found where the lady was buried. So they seem to have listen, this is just a report and the Pima County Sheriff's Department has responded to this report. But I did just want to address it. The report says from Sheriff Nana Nana Nanos. He says, we are aware of reports regarding an anonymous tip related to the Nancy Guthrie investigation that was provided to a group in that was provided to a group in Mexico. At this time, we have not been contacted by Mexican authorities. We will continue to follow up on any credible information. So it doesn't seem to really be caring. Thank you Sheriff Chris Nanos Nana Nana Nanos doesn't seem to be that excited that they may have potentially found the Lady. We may have found the lady. We don't know. Is the lady here? Is she not there? Like, where's. Like, did they check? Like, Nanos is like. Oh, okay. Well, when they call us, we'll. We'll, like, check it out. Thanks for letting us know. Like, what? Savannah girl? Why? Like, I don't know. If somebody's claiming that Nancy Guthrie is in Mexico and they've basically told you the spot, like, you're. There's not even like a. You know, we're gonna go check it out. I. I don't get it. I don't know. The lack of urgency. I can't. Yeah, I mean, it's only been, what, 130something days, so I really need a Zach Peter and Kristin Cavallari collab. Ah, yes. I would love that. I would love that. I'm also friendly or, well, like, Instagram friendly with her bestie, Justin Anderson. I don't know. But yeah. Okay. That said, let's officially get into it. Blake Lively. Here we go. So I'm gonna skip over the first 10 pages because those are all kind of just the background, but this is Lyman's decision. I'll just give it to you out front, and then we'll go through it. He has granted her her attorney's fees, but he has not granted her her punitive damages or her treble damages. And people are like, what do you mean? I can't believe he gave her her fees. He was probably always. I always kind of thought he was going to give her her fees. That's pretty. Pretty standard when somebody sues you and their lawsuit does not prevail. Usually you can sue them. In this case, because it ultimately ended in a settlement. Like, it just didn't seem like a reasonable thing to keep fighting for that. But of course, Lively was going to keep fighting regardless, because, you know, her and Ryan, they're really hurting. Like, their money, like, money's tight. So, like, of course they had to. I mean, Ryan's only the face of the American dream here in America, but, you know, they're clearly pinching pennies, so it's crazy. Oh, man. Here, let's get into the actual ruling. So he does get into it. Based off of 47.1, he says the court first issue addresses the issues of treble and punitive damages before turning to the propriety of attorney's fees. Number one, it says Lively cannot seek treble and punitive damages under Rule 54. Rule 54D, the Wayfarer parties first take issue with any award of tribal damages and punitive damages. In this procedural posture, they argue that treble and punitive damages require a finding of actual compensatory damages and that no such damages have been found. Here. Lively responds that she which is true, she was they she wasn't able to prove compensatory damages which prove what money she actually lost as a result of their litigation because she was not able to prove her smear campaign. So she really wasn't able to prove her case. And so Lively responds that she has sought a schedule for the submission of damages evidence consistent with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 54, which says she provides appropriate procedure for determining any disputed factual issues relating to these damage awards. A straightforward reading of the rule, however, reveals that Lively's position must be rejected. Because treble and punitive damages are neither costs nor attorneys FEES Under Rule 54, lively cannot exceed them pursuant to the procedures outlined in that provision. Boom. Courts must interpret the Federal Rules the same way they interpret federal laws more generally, by giving them their plain meaning. The stating point of inquiry is of course, the language of the rule itself. Where the rules terms are clear, our inquiry is at end. Where they are not otherwise defined individual words, a rule carry the ordinary contemporary common meaning. Yes. Got it. Thank you, Judge Lyman. Lively's council suggested an oral argument. The Wayfarer parties waived any arguments regarding the proprietary of seeking damages through Rule 54. The court disagrees. Although the Wayfarer parties did not expressly challenge the applicability of Rule 54 to claim for damages in their Memorandum of Law, they did challenge the award damages in this procedural posture and the procedure Lively now invokes comes from Rule 54. Furthermore, Lively has the opportunity to address the issues in her supplemental letter brief and at oral argument, opportunities of which she availed herself. It is well settled that the courts have discretion to consider arguments raised at oral argument, especially where, as here, it is the nature of clarifying and making explicit what was set forth in the party's brief rather than an entirely new argument finding no waiver where issue raised at oral and not in the Memorandum of Law, it is similarly well settled that the courts are not are required to interpret federal statutes as they are written. Got it. Even if the Wayfarer parties had conceded that damages were available under Rule 54, that could not constrain the Court's independent interpretation of the rules. Plain language. Got it. So even if the Wayfarer parties weren't able to like make their point good enough, the law is what the law is and it doesn't roll in her favor. Sorry, lively. Rule 54 is titled Costs Attorneys fees, and it discusses certain procedures for the award of those two categories of expenses. It does not mean damages which are compensatory, treble, punitive, and otherwise. The Supreme Court has explained that the term costs as used in Rule 54 is defined by. These six categories. One, fees of the clerk and marshal. Fees for printed and electronically recorded transcripts necessary for obtaining for necessarily obtained for use in the case. Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses. Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for the use in this case. Docket fees and compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters and salaries, fees, expenses and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828. So there are costs, there's your attorney's fees, and then they're all like the filing costs or if you need to hire, you know, an expert, a court appointed expert to help, you know, with something, all of that falls under the category of cost. So these aren't awards, if that makes sense. These are just expenses that we had in, had occurred throughout this litigation and in my understanding is the limit of the timeline. So she can't fight for all of the money that she spent in fighting Justin Baldoni. She can only fight up until the point where his lawsuit, his defamation lawsuit was dismissed. So that was last summer. So it was really only maybe six months, five, six months of. Well, I guess it would be when he filed it and then when it was dismissed. So I believe it's a window of like January to June, if I'm remembering the timeline correctly. But it's literally a few months of attorney's fees. Now, I do think she's claiming that she paid $800,000 in attorney's fees when she was fighting Jed Wallace, which is crazy. Also, remember that when you're fighting for attorneys fees, you have to be you, you get awarded a reasonable amount spent, not actual amount. So you can say, I spent all this money. But if you're spending an astronomical amount that's not reasonable, then you may not get that entire, you know, cost that you spent because you may have not needed to spend a lot. And they also, you know, so Judge Lyman, I'm pretty sure once she submits her attorney's fees and costs, the wayfarer parties will push back and they'll probably end up having to pay somewhere, something somewhere in the middle. But $800,000 for a couple of months of responding to it. I mean, really, all they would be paying for is a motion to dismiss that was filed. So however long it took them, took them to put together this motion to dismiss, that's basically what they're paying for in attorney's fees. And it doesn't cost them $800,000 to put together a motion to dismiss because that's ultimately what happened and how his case got dismissed. And it was dismissed. Not even. They didn't even need a strong argument. The case was dismissed solely based off of litigation privilege. Okay, Moving on. Equally clear is that treble and punitive damages also cannot fairly be described as attorney's fees. Okay. And then the jud really gets into it. So attorneys fees and costs in this context therefore serve entirely distinct purposes from treble or punitive damages. Punitive damages mean, like, these are the dam. This is the money that I'm making you pay to pay for what you've done. Like, this is the. Like the. How do I just. Like the. You were bad. So I'm going to make you pay an extra $10,000 because this is meant to punish you. And then the treble damages, triple it. Right? So if I. If I said that I'm penalizing you for $10,000 treble damages, triple that. So it's actually, you're paying a $30,000. And that's what she wanted. She wanted the judge to award her punitive damages to like, you know, reprimand the wayfarer parties in some way with the price tag. Because there wasn't even a fight over compensatory damages. I don't believe. Because it doesn't seem like compensatory damages has even come up. Compensatory damages are the actual damages that you lost. So if there was like a. A job that she had that she got fired from and they said, we're firing you because Justin Baldoni sued you, then she can say, oh, that $10,000 that I was supposed to get from that contract that's now canceled because of this lawsuit. Then those are. That $10,000 would be compensatory damages because that's an actual quantifiable number that she lost. Right. It was something that she had that then was taken away from her because of this litigation or because of the allegations made within this litigation. So that's compensatory damages. Punitive are the, you know, reprimanding you. So she lost $10,000. And so therefore, I think it's reasonable for her to get an extra $10,000 in punitive damages. And it's triple treble. So I'M gonna triple that. That's basically where we're at. But it doesn't appear she was able to prove that there were any compensatory damages. So therefore compensatory compensatory damages out the window. So it looks like here we're just fighting for her attorney's bills, her tribal damages and her punitive damages. And Lyman is just outright saying punitive and tribal damages don't apply because the rule that she's fighting for doesn't actually cover punitive and tribal damages. It only covers costs and attorneys fees. As California Supreme Court has explained, fee shifting simply requires the party to that creates the cost to bear them. It does not make the party liable for file filing a lawsuit. So yeah, it's fee shifting. I paid this much money to fight you, therefore you have to pay for it because you lost. It's pretty reasonable. He said the same cannot be said for the liability he said the same cannot be said of the liability for damages that Section 47.1 establishes. So now we're moving into 47.1. Nor can treble and punitive damages under Section 47.1 be understood as a kind of non taxable expense related or related to attorneys fees. Courts have held that such non taxable expenses include costs such as messenger services, photocopying and legal research. That is, the expenses must bear some connection to the provision of legal representation. Treble and punitive damages stemming from emotional, reputational, financial and other harm caused by abusive litigation lack that necessary connection. The expenses must bear some connection to the provision of legal representation. Got it. So treble, impunitive, stemming from emotional, reputational, financial or other harms caused by abusive litigation lacks that necessary connection. It needs to have a connection to legal representation. That's where you're able to prevail on 47.1. In short, lively provides no support for the provision that a party may seek treble and punitive damages through Rule 54, Motion for Costs and fees, and the plain language that the rule foreclosures the possibility. Lively herself appears to acknowledge the difference between attorneys fees and costs. On the one hand, the proper Subject of Rule 47 Motion and Treble and punitive damages. On the other hand, as she independently seeks all four categories of monitor monetary awards, the treble and punitive damages cannot be sought through the procedural vehicle of Rule 54. Motion finds further support from a reading of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a whole. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish that there is one form of action, the civil action, as the Rules outline a comprehensive set of procedures for adjudicating legal and equitable rights and remedies in all all such civil actions in the United States district courts. The prescription of Federal rule of Civil Procedure 2 that there shall be one form of action that has been categorized as the most fundamental rule of all. Today there's a single procedure procedural framework for the federal civil proceedings regardless of the substantiate claim at issue. Oral argument Lively's counsel suggested that relief might also be warranted under Rule 47, which provides a relevant part of the final judgment should grant the relief to which the party is entitled even if the party has not demanded the relief in its pleadings. This provision likely does not help Lively, as the court, without objection, has already entered final judgment without the relief she seeks. And although in entering judgment the court did not provisionally grant Lively the right to amend the judgment under Rule 54 and the court did not permit Lively to amend the judgment in ways inconsistent with Rule 54. Okay, I feel like this is kind of more of the same. By seeking damages, Lively let's see Slap hold the Wayfarers liable not only for actual damages, but triple the damages to impose additional punitive damages, all without the benefit of formal proceeding, discovery and dispositive motion practice in line with rules 12 and 56. Although lurking in the background is the potential conflict with the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees federal court the right to a jury trial in suits at common law. To the extent a claim damages under 47.1 resembles a kind of abusive process or malicious prosecution claim, courts have held that an action for malice prosecution falls well within the recognized forms of action of common law for Seventh Amendment purposes. During oral arguments, Lively's counsel stated that the damages she seeks under section 47.1 include reputational damages and lost jobs and business opportunities she allegedly suffered as a result of dissemination of the Wayfarer complaint. In effect, she seeks through 47.1 much of the same relief that she should have obtained through the jury verdict in her affirmative lawsuit. This fact only underscores the ways in which her current request seek bypass the full panoply of rights guaranteed a defendant under federal law. So they're like, yeah, she didn't even go to trial. She didn't want to like, actually prove her case. She didn't let a jury determine that she deserves damages. Therefore, nope, sorry, lady, you can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to waive your right to a jury trial where you'd be able to prove this and they would be able to grant you compensatory damages and possibly punitive damages. You didn't want to do that. You had that. You didn't want to do that. Love that he called her out on that. Yeah. And so. Yeah. So the fees are not for the entire lawsuit. Just the defamation piece. Just. Yeah, just the. Up until. When she got her motion to dismiss granted. So no discovery, no depositions. All of that she doesn't get her attorney's fees for. That's not what is applicable at that time. That was all stuff that came afterwards. Remember, we didn't even get into discovery before Lyman dismissed Beldoni's lawsuit. So. Yeah. Elizabeth. Oh, thank you. Elizabeth Marie, 95. She dropped a super chat and says, happy birthday, Zach. Have a drink on me. Very sweet of you, Elizabeth. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you very, very much. Great breakdown, Zach. Gracias. Thank you. I hope I'm making sense. I really hope that I'm being clear. I know it's a lot of words and a lot of legal jargon. I'm mad she's getting anything, but not really. Like, she's really not. Like. And also, her and Ryan have so much money, and what they're probably gonna end up getting awarded from the Wayfarer parties is, like, really nothing. Like, it's so insignificant. Like, honestly is. It's X. My birthday's on Monday. It's not my birthday yet. Sorry to clarify. My Birthday is the 15th. It's on Monday. It is not my birthday yet. But I do appreciate the eight early birthday wishes. Just glow. Glam girl says I'm late, so I'm just catching up at the Medea Tree Theory is bringing me to tears. Oh, hopefully good tears. Thank you, Ocean Song. Happy birthday. Oh, my God. You guys are sending all the birthday messages. You guys are so sweet. Thank you, thank you. Thank you again. My birthday's not till Monday, though. Okay. I do appreciate you. Holly says the Wayfarer had insurance that she. She didn't slash. Doesn't. True. So, yeah, it's likely that their insurance is going to be able to cover. And, I mean, maybe it's a couple tens of thousand, like maybe 10,000, 20,000. I remember when I was having to fight and potentially having to do a motion to dismiss when I was getting. We don't even get into that. But when the paparazzi was trying to sue me for using photos of Blake and Ryan, when that was happening, I remember it was probably going to cost, like, 220 grand to have to do a motion to dismiss. So I would imagine with a legal team as big as hers, with the legal team as big as her back, I would imagine it's more than 20 grand. Maybe 50 grand is what she'll reasonably get. But again, we have to remember, she doesn't get awarded what she actually spent. She only gets awarded what is reasonable. So Judge Lyman will ultimately determine what's reasonable and what's not. She'll submit her bill, and then the Wayfarer parties will likely push back on it, and then Lyman will be like, oh, okay, so let's find somewhere in the middle. Brigitte says there's no way Blake and Ryan will only submit $20,000. They'll submit 650 million. Yeah, they're going to submit as much as they possibly can. Right. They're going to give us a bill as big as her back, but it ain't going to work. Hollywood Reporter has already posted everywhere. She won, of course. Right? Blake Lively awarded legal fees after Justin Baldoni settlement. Yeah, I mean, well, okay, look. NBC News. NBC News posted it fair. Fairly. They said Blake Lively can seek legal fees but no damages in Justin Baldoni defamation lawsuit. Yeah, fair, but what she wanted was to penalize him, and she didn't penalize him. She literally just got him to cover her bill, which, again, is reasonable. I'm so late to all this. So she's. She isn't getting attorney's fees. She is getting attorney's fees. She's not getting damages, which was always what was likely going to happen. I think it's. It's a reasonable, fair decision on the judge's part, to be honest with you. Yeah, I don't think she'll get 150,000, but I'm sure she'll probably get maybe 50 to 80. I don't know. I'm just kind of. I don't think. I can't foresee her getting over $100,000 for a motion to dismiss for attorneys that only represented her for five to six months before his case was tossed. So. Yeah, and like I said, they have insurance that'll likely cover that. So, yeah. Okay, let's keep going through this. I mean, it's kind of pretty cool. Clear. But let's take a quick pause because I want to shout out our sponsors. Listen, there's a lot I should be doing for my health, but hydration is one of the few things that makes an instant difference. That's why drip drop is a daily thing for me. It's fast, it works, and it actually makes me feel better right away. Drip Drop is doctor developed proven fast hydration that helps your body and mind work better. Which is exactly what 2026 you needs. Think support for the busy days, long workouts and everything in between. Drip Drop uses science based formulas for rapid hydration so you feel your results fast while getting three times the electrolytes of leading sports drinks. Okay. Personally, I love their Zero Sugar Plus. It's a breakthrough formula with an advanced blend of six key electrolytes, 15 essential vitamins and nutrients and no sugar or artificial sweeteners. There are 16 original flavors and eight zero sugar plus options with summer right around the corner. I love me the watermelon flavor is so delicious. I like it. Right now Drip Drop is offering podcast listeners 20% off your first order. Just go to dripdrop.com and use promo code no filter. That's dripdrop.com promo code no filter for 20% off. Stock up now@dripjob.com and use promo code Drill Filter no Filter this episode of no Filter with Zach Peter is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some major cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save money when you bundle your home and auto policies. The process only takes minutes and it could mean hundreds more in your pocket. Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
- [42:08]
C
My name is Shannon Maldonado. I'm the founder of Yaoi, a gift shop from the lens of artists and handmade objects. I chose Shopify because when I was testing other platforms it was definitely one of the most user friendly. It was important to me to think about where we would be in the future. All of the tools for reading your sales, like planning inventory, they're just right there on your dashboard. For anyone starting a small business, the biggest thing I can tell you, it doesn't have to be perfect. Shopify can help you build upon it. Start your free trial on shopify.com.
- [42:40]
B
Dali Lee Da Lovely Deluvele says, wait, she started this mess and she has to pay her attorney's fees. Can Baldoni appeal that? Likely not, because part of their settlement they agreed no appeals that like whatever happens moving forward is what happens and what they're going to stick with. So we are. I already got through why she's not getting her damages. It's pretty. It's. The judge is making it pretty clear he Spends a lot of time really leaning into this. Okay, let's fast forward to the part where he does give her fees and costs. Let's see what. What reasoning he gives. He. Like I said, it's really just a fee shifting. It's not a lot of money. It's money that Wayfair is probably going to be able to use their. To use their insurance to pay for. So I just, to me, this isn't a big. It's not a big deal. Like, it's actually, like, sure, it may feel like a win, and she's going to try to spin it like a win, but I mean, if a win is walking down the street and finding a penny and that's what you're claiming, is your victory, cool. Good for you. Like, I. Okay, okay, so let's get into Lyman's reasoning for granting her fees and costs, and again, to the argument about why is she getting that? Because he lost. That's the thing. Or his case was dismissed with his defamation piece. Right. He did not push that forward. He did not prevail on that. So when you sue somebody and your lawsuit does not prevail, therefore, you are entitled to get your. Your attorney's fees covered because somebody sued you. Right. Whereas in this case, she didn't necessarily, like, she buckled. Right. She did lose on. I mean, the judge dismissed a number of her claims, but there was still a piece of her lawsuit of her claim that was moving forward to trial, and then she settled that. That wasn't dismissed. She voluntarily withdrew those. So therefore, because there was a settlement and not like, an actual, like, conclusion to that based off of the untraceable smear campaign that she was alleging, which was based off of a contract dispute, because of that, he wasn't able to go after her for attorney's fees. But also he's like, I don't need to. I don't care to. Like, it's not really that big of a deal. The attorney's fees piece is not the important piece here. What she wanted, and this is why this is actually a huge loss for her, because what she really wanted was the punitive and treble damages. And what she really wanted was to utilize 47.1 to execute on that. Because 47.1 is the law, is the MeToo law. So that's the one where she could have been like, I'm a victim, and 47.1 is to protect victims. And therefore, because 47.1 is to protect victims and I'm a victim, I'm entitled to the Judge. I'm entitled to the judge punishing Justin Baldoni. He needs to punish them. And that's why she wanted punitive and treble damages, which she did not get. So the part of this that she wanted to win, she did not get. Her getting granted attorney's fees, like I said, is really just, you know, you found a penny on the ground and, like, cool. Did you need it? No. Is it really going to change your life also? No, but, like, cool that you found a penny. You know what? Better yet, let's make it a quarter. Let's say she found a quarter on the street. That's really what this is. Equivalent of. Lively's motion for attorneys fees and costs under section 47.1 stands much firmer on ground. For starters, the aspect of her motion does not suffer from the same categorical mismatch with Rule 54 that her request for damages does. Rule 54 is designed to precisely address requests for attorneys fees. The Wayfarer parties raise a host of other threshold issues with respect to Lively's request for attorneys fees and costs, but as the court details below, none pose a bar to recovery. As for the merits, the court concludes that on this record, the Wayfarer parties have been failed to clarify their burden of demonstrating that Section 47.1 privilege does not apply, and Lively, therefore, is entitled to fees and costs. So, yes, she's getting her fees and costs, and, yes, she was able to get it under 47.1. We can all thank Valerie for that one. Thanks Valerie Burke. We can thank her. So if you want to be pissed at somebody, you can go direct that at Valerie Burke, because she's the one that wrote this law, and she's the one that helped Blake Lively for all of those months to help. And she was the one that was publicly disparaging Justin Baldoni and clapping for Blake Lively as Blake was getting all of these wins in court. And then the second Blake did to her what Blake has a history of doing, again, you make a deal with the devil. Don't be shocked when the devil turns on you. But again, you make your own bed now you have to sleep in it. But, yeah, but I'm glad that, you know, Valerie now sees who Blake is when she could have seen who Blake was from the very beginning, but didn't want to, because she would rather, you know, be anti Baldoni because she doesn't want to read the lawsuit. She just wants to take at face value that he was the guy that was wrong. Sorry. The fact that she even got fees under 47.1 is sickening. Yeah. You know, it's a slap in the face to true victims. I agree. But again, it's not a big win. But if you're upset, then, you know, be upset at Valerie Burke, who created this law and who allowed Blake Lively to use it and weaponize it against someone like Justin Baldoni. And again, Valerie Burke was working with Blake Lively, and she was working with Blake Lively for a very, very long time. And she was helping Justin Baldoni. So. Sorry. She was helping her fight Justin Baldoni. And so, you know, no other states should honor a law from a different state. It's stupid. Well, let's get into his reasoning. Why? Okay, threshold issues. At the onset, there was no reason why Section 47.1 could not, at least theoretically, provide the basis for a fee request under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That is true. Rule 54 sets the procedure for filing a motion for fees rather than a substantial substantive standard for entitlement to such fees. Whereas here, a federal court, since in diversity or decides a claim of state law based on the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, state law provides substantiative standard for determining an entitlement to fees. Okay. Attorneys fees mandated by state statute are available when a federal court sits in diversity. Okay, what does that mean? Explaining that in a diversity action, state law creates the substantive right to attorneys fees. Citation and internal quotation marks admitted. Okay. Accordingly, there is nothing either unusual or improper about seeking fees under California law through the vehicle of Rule 54 motion. In fact, federal rules require as much in certain circumstances, a claim for attorneys fees and related to non taxable expenses must be made by motion unless the substantial substantive law requiring those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages. Right, which is why she didn't get her damages. She's only getting fees in this case. To be sure, 47.1 is no ordinary fee shifting statute. Okay, settled. Central to the federal rules treatment of attorneys fees is an assumption that a court decision of entitlement of two fees will typically require an inquiry separate from the decision on the merits. That is an inquiry regarding what is due because of the judgment rather than an inquiry regarding what the judgment should be. And the award of attorney's fees is therefore uniquely separable from the cause of action to be proved at trial. Got it. Again, this is all under the work of Valerie Burke. She's the one that put. And this is. And it's very clear what this means. Let me read this again to you so you really understand what is due because of. Okay. An inquiry Regarding what is due because of the judgment rather than what is. Rather than the inquiry regarding what the judgment should be. And the award of attorneys fees is therefore uniquely separable from the cause of action to be proved at trial. So it's saying that that doesn't even have to. The what. Whether or not he did or didn't do it, and whether or not that can even be proven in court is besides the fact under Valerie's law. This is the concerning piece, is that, you know, regardless of why it was dismissed, regardless, like, the details don't matter, it comes down to the simple fact that she should get her fees because she lost or sorry, because he. His case was dismissed. So, yeah, somehow I think I will. It will never be over. This case. No, this is it. This is done. Oh, sorry. I keep calling her Valerie. Her name is Victoria. Victoria Burke. Victoria Burke. Vicky, I saw Victoria say that Blake was weaponizing and misusing 47.1. She said that she hoped Blake wouldn't get a dime. That's great that. That's what she hopes. But, Victor, I mean, sorry, Vicki, this is. This is exactly how your. Your law was. Was written. And maybe that's not what your intention was, but it's working as designed to protect, you know, victims or to just protect people that were able to weaponize it. Sorry. When a law isn't written well and it's abused, then that's where you come in. That's where you get the issue. She still lost. Her reputation is ruined. No one wants to see her anywhere. Very true. Do attorneys fees go directly to pay the attorneys? Yes. Yeah. So I guess she didn't win anything. Right? Like, she. The money's not going to her. That would have been in damages. Damages would have been what she would have been awarded. This money is just paying for the attorneys that represented her. It's them getting their money. Brigitte says, I'm not done with that Burke woman. She's shady. Well, we're seeing her. Her law in practice. Like, this is it. It's right here. It's right in front of us. We're seeing it in real time playing out and how she essentially gave Blake Lively the leg up to be able to do something like this. And not only does she give this to Blake Lively, but Blake Lively then showed the world how to do it. So that's where we're at. Like, Lively showed us exactly how to sue somebody. And then if they try to defend themselves, Blake Lively is showing that you can then reprimand them. Reprimand them for Trying to defend themselves. So, yeah, Heather says Victoria should have said that a long time ago. It's too late now. Yeah. I mean, she should have never been on Blake's side, and I don't think she would have been on Blake's side if she actually read the details of the lawsuit, which she never. Last time I talked to her did. And that was a recent conversation that we had. So even when she turned on Blake, because I think if she would have actually looked at both sides and read the court documents and, like, actually made an educated decision on whether or not to back Blake, she would have realized. I think she's an intelligent enough woman to have some level of discernment to realize what Blake Lively had been doing on the set of events with us and what she was doing in this moment as well. That wasn't important to Valerie. The truth wasn't important to Valerie, because if the truth was important, she would have given Baldoni the benefit of the doubt to at least hear his side, and she never did. She doesn't care about what his side is. And now we're seeing exactly how her law can be weaponized. And that's not Blake Lively's fault, to be honest with you. That's the way the law was written. You can't be mad at the player. You have to hate the game. She gave her the ammo. Exactly. She gave her the ammo. And she worked with her. She helped her for months. And it wasn't until Blake Lively did what Blake Lively always does. And once Blake Lively did it, then Val or what's her name? Victoria. Then that's when Victoria finally was like, oops, oh, no, this is not good. I don't want to be a part of Blake. It's like. But it was not hard to see what was happening. I mean, in fact, you didn't even. You didn't even need to read Baldoni's side of the story to read his lawsuit to read what was going on. You could have just, you know, spent 30 minutes watching a few videos of Blake's. Right. The shirsty flaw video, the authorship video. When she was doing the Forbes panel, was it Forbes or Variety? I feel like Forbes would make a lot of sense considering Ryan Reynolds is just on the COVID of Forbes. But, you know, it's. It's crazy. We're seeing it. We are seeing it. Jader says, I don't think she would have. I think she knew and was fine with everything until Blake screwed her over and wanted to take over the bill. Yeah, I agree Victoria. Sorry, her name is Victoria. Victoria. Victoria. So I hope Justin's next project is a smash hit and wins an Oscar. I doubt it'll ever win an Oscar. It won't win. He'll never. Unfortunately, Hollywood, I think, will cast him out. But the better thing is that Hollywood is dying and he doesn't need Hollywood because he can still prevail in with the public. You know that. That's the beauty of, like, social media and all of these new forums that people can jump into because it's, you know, it's actually, I think. Did Victoria ever talk to you again, Zach? Why would she? She's clearly somebody that only needs a means to an end. She's clearly an opportunistic person. She has no value in speaking to me and she has no ethics and even, you know, having a professional courtesy to even respond to me. So. Yeah, no, I. I don't expect her to. She's shown me who she is. Forbes. The infamous rug pull speech. Yeah. Where she was just like, I need authorship of. You know, I need authorship of a project. I know that they hire me and they hire me with the intention of thinking that I'm an actress, but then they don't know that I need authorship in order to have fulfillment. So then they feel like it's a rug pull. It's like, well, what. But that. That is a rug pull. Ariana boy says, exactly. It's like cheating and then getting mad when you get cheated on. Yeah. Amanda and west, when west inevitably treats Amanda shitty. She already knew who he was. So again, yeah, it's like you can't be shocked how you get him is how you lose him. You can't know that somebody has a certain reputation and then be surprised when they are in line with their character and treat you the same way. I can't feel bad for you with that. You know, I just don't. So I think, if anything, we've now seen the flaw in this bill. So it's been a wasted two years. I mean, Beth says she didn't win the 400 million in total. So homegirl lost 10 of her 14 or. Yes, 13 claims. Yeah. No, she clearly. Blake clearly lost for sure. Blake very clearly lost. She didn't get anything that she wanted. And if at best, she just doesn't have to pay for a piece of her attorney's fees, like, okay. Because again, the only attorney's fee she's entitled to in this case would be before the. Was after he filed his lawsuit. And then up until the point where there was the motion to dismiss was granted, but that was well before any of the litigation really heated up. That was well before discovery. That was well before deposition. So none of those attorneys fees are applicable here because that happened after his case was already dismissed. Now Blake needs to pay her attorneys herself. She can't. Attorneys. Because they settled. She can sue for. They can sue her for fees. She can't. But, sorry, Susan, I'm misunderstanding what you tried to write there, but now Blake needs to pay her attorneys. She does, regardless, for the bulk of the bill. Right. Because she has to pay them for everything leading up to before his lawsuit. And then she has to pay him for. Or, sorry, she has to pay her own attorneys for everything after that because she ended up settling. So she still has, you know, a big chunk of She's. I mean, at least after last summer. So all of last fall, winter, and this spring, all of those attorneys fees, which is, I mean, I want to say like three times what she's going to have to. Or she's going to end up getting from Baldoni. That's what I'm saying. It's not. It's not a big win for her. So basically, Ryan and Blake's attorneys are happy. They'll get some money. They're going to get all the money. They're getting all of their money. It's just Beldoni is going to have to pay for a fraction of it. Why would anyone work with her ever again after this delusion? It's not over. Just this part is over. Blake and Ryan will be drugged through the mud again with. Oh, Jones v. Abel. That's right. I forgot Jones and Abel. That one's still coming up. She's entitled to fees because she files without malice, per 47.1 law. Yeah, okay. Sorry, we haven't finished reading or going through it. This is. Sorry, we're. If we want to keep reading, it says the part that we're at is just in the. Is just clarifying that 47.1 is no she fee shifting statute. Okay, so I think this is what we're about to get into is what you're saying here in the live chat. Let's see, like, like imposition of cost fees and contempt sanctions. The imposition of Rule 7 of Rule 11 sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an action. Rather, it requires the determination of a collateral issue, whether the attorney has abused the judicial process and if so, what sanction would be appropriate. Such determination may be made after a principal suit has been terminated, but for. But Section 47.1 appears to effectively collapse merits and fee determinations, thereby calling it into calling into question whether fees may be sought under federal rules after final judgment has already been entered, as it was here on October 31st, 2025. Oh, so the ruling came October 31st. Interesting in determining whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees, costs, treble and punitive Damages Under Section 47.1, a court must decide whether the relevant communication is privileged under section 47.1, a determination which is which necessarily also revolves the merits of the underlying defamation claim. As a defamation claim under California law by definition cannot be premised on a privileged communication because defamation is statutorily defined as an unprivileged communication, it is incorrectly terminology under California law to refer to a privileged defamation or to a privilege to defame. Interesting. Said differently, the merits of the underlying defamation claim and the fees analyze or and the fees analysis rise and fall together. Furthermore, to the extent a request for compensatory and punitive damages under 47.1 could be understood to raise merits questions of its own, ones to which the right to a jury trial might attach attorneys fees might similarly be understood to raise merits questions. As the California statute does not distinguish between the different types of relief provided in subsection B. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that fees and damages under 47.1 both require merits determinations to be decided at the same time as the remainder of the merits issues, as opposed to a post judgment context, perhaps with the question of damages resolved as part of a bifurcated proceeding. Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court's decision further forecloses this line of reasoning. There, the Supreme Court rules categorically the question of statutory attorney's fees is to collateral and separate from the decision on the merits, regardless of whether the statute authorizing the attorney's fees characterizes them as part and parcel of the merits judgment. The bright line rule, which turns on the nature of relief of the relief requested and not it's categorized as a matter of state law or findings that require comes from conceptual consistency in the status of a particular fee authorization as merits or non merits, but rather preservation of operational consistency and predictability in overall application, which deals with the finality of decisions for appellate purposes. These interests inconsistency and predictability, the Supreme Court reasoned, require a uniform rule that an unresolved issue of attorneys fees for the litigation in question does not prevent judgment on the merits from being final. Okay, Let's see. A court may therefore entertain a request for section 47 point B fees under Rule 54 even where final judgment has already been entered. Okay. Additionally, Rule 54 does not prevent the courts from resolving factual issues and determining liability for fees and the amount of any such award. The Wayfarer parties argued that the availability of section 47.1 relies on certain factual predicates, particularly a lack of malice and a reasonable basis for the complaint, and that because the court has made no factual findings regarding those issues, Lively's claim for attorneys fees cannot be adjudicated. Okay, so they. I guess he's saying that they weren't able to prove. Like, they weren't able to provide actual proof of malice, but it's also because nothing actually was able to really be played out before a jury before. Rule 54 states a court may decide issues of liability for fees before receiving submissions on the values of services, and that in doing so, a court must find the facts. Facts and state its conclusions of law provided in Rule 54. Rule 52. Sorry. The rule further contemplates that courts might conduct evidentiary hearings in connections with fee awards. Okay, so it's possible that there may. That it may not be over just yet. Well, it's likely not going to be over, because I'm assuming whatever bill she hands them, they're going to be like, this is astronomical. You're crazy. And then the judge is going to have to, like, like, look at it, and he's gonna have to determine, well, is it reasonable or is it crazy like her? And that'll be. You know, I'm so disappointed with the ruling. Blake didn't even have evidence that prove anything. I don't get why the judge ruled like that. Why? I'm explaining to you why the judge ruled like that. It's more of just like the framework of the law, particularly the framework of the law that Vicki Burke, Victoria Burke, wrote her laws right here in practice for all of us to see. And she's. We're trying to keep pushing it to as many states as we can. Love that. We know she can't let it go with this judgment. She will. Amber heard this up. She. Her true colors are so out in the light. Those who see her are not going to let her play us anymore. Well, obviously. Serves Justin right for cheating us out of Depp v. Heard. I know. Well, we were never going to get Depp v. Heard part two because it was never going to be filmed. So as much as we were excited for the trial, we were only going to get the little bits that the media was going to be able to report for us. And we already see how they operate and how they report things. It's always favorable to Blake Lively. So it's very unlikely that we were going to get honest coverage of that case. Blake's lawyers will ask for 47.1. 100,000. Yeah. Drafting and arguing a motion to dismiss in a case this big would be very expensive. Not a cheap bill. I mean, it depends on what you consider cheap. Right. I assume, like, she's trying to. To have Jed Wallace paid for 800,000, which is just astronomical. So I imagine she's probably gonna fight for. If it's not a six figure, maybe even a seven figure bill of, like, this is what you have to pay for. And then again, that's gonna have to go into a hearing where the judge is gonna have to review it and look at, you know, is this reasonable? Is it not reasonable? And he'll help make determination of, you know, what they are entitled to pay for. But again, this is not money to her, and it's just money to cover her attorneys. So she's not getting a penny out of this. So, yeah, Brigitte says, I would have loved to read her psycho evaluation. I know. One doesn't win attorney's fees if they lost the case. So the title of this video is so misleading. One doesn't win attorney's fees. Well, she would have won damages. I'm not talking about fees. I'm talking about damages. So the video is not. What's her name? The video is not misleading, sir, because it says she officially loses. Beldoni. Lawsuit. Okay. Lawsuit. And she did lose because she could have won damages and she did not get granted damages. What she got granted were fees. So to your comment, you're right. One does not win attorney's fees, but they can win damages. Right. In this case, I would think the win would be punitive and treble damages, compensatory damages. I don't know. That's kind of like you just saying that if you get awarded compensatory damages, I think that that's more of just you making up the money that you lost and then attorney's fees. Obviously, that goes to the attorneys, so technically, the attorneys win. But, no, I don't think the video is misleading for saying that she lost, because I certainly didn't say that she won. I said that she lost because she lost the damages piece, which is really what she wanted. She wanted the damages. She wanted to stick it to him. She wanted to feel like she could win, and she. She did it. So, yes, I stand by the video's title of Saying that Blake lost because now it's done and she didn't get anything. Willie says you get awarded damages, but for real, it's still a win. Yeah, it depends on what you consider the win. You know, the win and the loss and what you're looking at. Is it just the money? Is it the merit? Is it the. The perception of, you know, she definitely can say there's the perception of her winning. Taylor's next song will be I knew you were treble when you walked. I knew you were treble when you walked in. And she settled. Yeah. Libby says bro Zach is not a lawyer. Chill. What did I say wrong? Now I feel like that was like supposed to defend me, but it was like low key shade, like bro Zach's not an attorney. Chill. I felt like that that was like meant to be a nice thing, but it was actually a little like, ah. Zach, I have a name for Blake's next movie directed by Wine. The Blake. The Blake witch project. That's funny. Christina says hit the like button. And please be sure to subscribe. Yes, guys, please subscribe. What? The insurance part. You were the insurance. That's conjecture. I'm assuming that their insurance will likely cover this so that the Wayfarer parties won't pay out of pocket. I mean, regard. Whatever it is. It's going to be a drop in the bucket for them. Like, they're like Steve Sarawitz. We know. I mean, it's still gonna. It's not gonna be fun for him to pay whatever the bill ultimately is if he pays it. But I believe the Wayfair insurance will likely cover this or at least cover a significant portion of it. I just watched Popcorn Planet with the verdict. What verdict? Tommy says so you can sue on 47.1 even though you are wrong. You can get some sort of settlement. It's not a settlement. It's just fees. But you can prevail utilizing 47.1 even if you aren't able to prove your case. And this is a clear example of that, because nobody was able. I mean, because we're especially getting down to the defamation piece. That was the piece that got tossed out here with Baldoni's lawsuit. And we didn't even get to move into the evidence of that to prove whether it did or did not happen to prove whether there was or wasn't defamation because she had litigation privilege and because she had the. This 47.1 protection as well. So, I mean, listen, like I said, Blake Lively is just showing you the playbook that Victoria Burke set up. For her. So that's where we at. Ocean Song says new to your chat. I really like your channel. Thank you, Oceana Song. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Tommy says Zach would be a great lawyer. Thank you. It ends with 150. I think it'll probably be about 150. She can't prove damages, which means Wayfair doesn't need to pay her. Correct. She can't prove damages. Any damages compensatory. So the judge is not granting her punitive, and she's most certainly not getting trouble. So, hey, that's the real loss is what she wanted. She wanted Baldoni to be penalized, and she wanted it to be a big spectacle, a win of attorney's fees that doesn't give her a dime, you know? So, yeah, I hope SAG sues Blake and Ryan. They won't remember SAG came out in support of Blake Lively. Jew. Jewel, is it Jule? Julie. Jui. No. J, U, I, E. Joey, UI I think the most important point is that this was a 50 50, but it is more important if Blake can sell tickets to her movies. Is she getting any projects, etc. Yeah, I think. Well, that was part of her argument, is that her. Her career has really suffered as a result of this. But she was trying to blame Baldoni for that. She was trying to blame Baldoni and she wasn't able to. So, yeah, they need to create a tool that allow you to block any motion pictures on streaming platforms with authors we don't like. Blake Lively is a lot worse than Amber Heard. She makes Amber look like an angel. I mean, truly. Because Amber Heard was just dumb. She was dumb and she was a liar, and Blake Lively was conniving, manipulative, and very strategic. So happy birthday, handsome Zach. Thank you, Claudia. You guys are so sweet for buying me a drink. But again, my birthday's not until Monday, but I do appreciate the early birthday wishes. Maybe I'll go have, like, a martini. Should I just celebrate my fucking birthday this week? It's, as Stassi Schroeder would say, it's my fucking birthday. I feel like I should just, you know, live it up, embrace it, right? Like, let's live life. I do want to give shout outs for people that left really sweet Apple podcast reviews. I really, really appreciate them, and I would appreciate if you continue and just, again, thank you for all the super chats. Claudia. Claudine. Claudine. Yes, Claudine. Thank you. I really appreciate the love. And thank you, Ocean Song. You guys are so sweet. And thank you Elizabeth Marie 95 I appreciate you guys and Paige Page Page Page. But I did want to give shout outs to people that left positive reviews on Apple podcast or just reviews in general. You know I'd love to read the shady ones as well but yeah guys, my birthday's on Monday the 15th. Okay. Anne 4:17 says love it. Five stars. Funny and smart, interesting topics of relevance. Total blast to listen to. Feels like you're hanging out. Thank you I and 14417 let's see. Rachel 080914 my fave show. 5 stars. Love this show. Zach is authentic, honest and balanced in his opinion and he calls things exactly as he sees them. He brings great energy and humor as well. I appreciate his personal views and thoughtful approach to important topics such as society and politics. Go Zach. Thank you Rach gen 310888, 888 says new listener. New listener. Loving the content. I need to give some love to offset the haters. I first listened to Zach on Megan Kelly. I loved his non woke middle of the road fair and honest opinions. Oh my God guys, so sorry. One second. Hello? Yes please. Thank you so much. Apologies guys. I forgot today is Friday and Gloria, my housekeeper is here. She gets here at 11:30. She's actually kind of on time today. Sorry. So we do have to head off because Gloria is here and she's about to ring the doorbell so they were just calling to. Security was letting her in. But I love you guys. I appreciate you. Thank you for the birthday wishes. My birthday is on Monday so we can celebrate together on Monday. I'll be back on Monday. Be sure to sign up for no filter all access. Yes. Thank you for the the the love gen 310-888-8888 thank you. She said not overly partisan. Really very little politics at all on his podcast besides the LA mayor stuff, but the tiny bit he comes off is right on. Thank you Jen. I appreciate that. Steph M0621 says Zach has a heart. I love that you share your true emotions when you talked about the couple terminating their pregnancy. You can be. You can believe everyone has a right to handle their bodies the way that they see fit and still be sad that this happened. Two different opinions can still be true at the same time. I love your show. Don't ever change. Thank you. Dolly Gal says never miss the show. Zach is so honest and has common sense. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Lisa22 says I love Zach. Keep it real. 10 out of 10. You guys. Thank you for the reviews, please keep leaving on Apple Podcasts. You can watch on Spotify, you can stream live here on YouTube, you can listen on Apple Podcasts and wherever you get your podcasts support no Filter with Zach Peter. I'll talk to you guys on Monday on my birthday. I'll see you later. I love you. I appreciate you. Shout out to Laura and Christina, our mods, in the live chat. I love you. Bye. Oh, wait. And also, if you are a fan of New Filter, you definitely want to check out the Pop Apologists. Hi, I'm Lauren. And I'm Chandler.
- [78:47]
C
And we're the host of Pop Apologist podcast, a weekly podcast devoted to celebrity gossip, Hollywood deep dives, Real Housewives, drama, and anything and everything.
- [78:56]
B
Taylor Swift.
- [78:57]
C
We're two sisters who make no apologies for our love of pop culture.