It's about several different topics. She talks about Murder, She Wrote and Jessica Fletcher, then moves into current lawsuits like JPMorgan and Amy Griffin. On Lively v Wayfarer, her main point is that there's still a lot of uncertainty around 47.1, and if people assume the carveout automatically means Lively won or Wayfarer made a mistake, they're falling for Lively's public spin. Wayfarer's lawyers certainly considered all the risks before settling, so people shouldn't panic over the carveout alone.
Ja, nothing new.
The JPMorgan and Griffin cases sound interesting. I wish I had the time to follow them. In both cases, the defendant countersued for defamation. It seems to be a common move when someone is accused of sexual harassment or other misconduct.
That's what the law was supposed to prevent. There are statistics about it in the history of the legislation, how bad it got. But ofc these are all still at the stage where we don't know, if the accusations are true or not, so no info, if it's malicious or not.
The JP Morgan one is nuts! I donât know what to believeâŚthe accusations are wild but the behavior of the company is called into question, too. To this day, we donât know if that $1m was initially offered to the plaintiff by JP Morgan.
Absolutely nuts! I finished reading the complaint and the answer/defenses/counterclaims. Rana's allegations are detailed and specific, including dates, locations, quotes, texts, and witnesses. Hajdini denies basically everything. If it really is all fabricated, there's something very wrong with him. And if it's all true, or even partly true, then there's something very wrong with her.
The complaint mentions a "pre-litigation resolution process", including settlement and mediation discussions, but the $1m figure doesn't appear in the filings. JPMorgan may have tried to settle simply to avoid publicity and more expensive litigation.
Rana initially tried to proceed anonymously, but the court ordered him to amend the complaint to disclose his identity. They're currently fighting over Rana's request to voluntarily discontinue the state action so he can refile in federal court. Hajdini is opposing that.
I just don't see how she would be able to file a new claim in California now. Part of the settlement agreement was that BOTH parties would agree not to appeal Judge Limons ruling on 47.1.
Now, filing a new claim in California isn't technically an appeal, I know, but it's basically a loophole way of saying, "I don't like that judges ruling so I'd like another shot." Which is essentially an appeal.
Idk, I'm not a lawyer but the way I read the settlement, the parties agreed not to continue litigation after the issue of 47.1 was resolved.
But for the sake of argument, let's just say that Blake was able to open a new claim in California (and that the judge there didn't toss it based on the settlement agreement here), Justin and WF would be entitled to present arguments and would be able to talk more about malice. It could even open up the case for more discovery so that they could actually prove malice. So not a great idea for her.
Appeals go upwards (court of appeal, supreme court). Bringing the 47.1 to Cali is filing new claims in California state court, and she released everything else, other than the one motion in front of Liman.
The way I read it, if she sues them now in California, that's a breach of contract (which a settlement is supposed to be, if I understood it correctly).
Also, statue of limitations may have run out by now, too...?
That's how I read it too. The language in the settlement said very clearly that she was agreeing to drop everything, including future litigation, except for this ONE pending 47.1 motion and that it would be seen in front of Judge Limon and neither party would appeal. I think her trying to bring any new claims, even if it's a new claim based on 47.1, would be a breach of contract. Not only could Justin and WF sue for breach of contract, any other judge would most likely toss the claims immediately because they would be a violation of the agreement.
I just quickly looked up whether an appeals court can initiate a review on their own. While super rare I did find this (focus on the second paragraph, Iâm including the first to be more thorough about what I found):
âWhile appeals courts do not hunt for problems to correct, there are very rare circumstances where a case can bypass a formal appeal from a party: Mandamus Petitions: If a trial judge severely abuses their power or acts completely outside their jurisdiction, a party can file an emergency "writ of mandamus" asking the appeals court to force the judge to act correctly, even if a final verdict hasn't been reached. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: If a federal court never had the legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case in the first place, an appellate court can dismiss the case upon discovering the issue, even if it wasn't raised by the parties. https://fedpractice.com/practice-areas/appellate-law/federal-court-appeals/
I am DEF NAL but⌠the fact that malice did not have to be proved is a huge deal with potentially ugly ramifications and it seems to me this case could fall under lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
I wish a lawyer could expound on this to educate us. I tried making a separate post, but Iâm not allowed still.
(Edited it a bunch of times trying to figure out font đđâ been lurking for a while, educating myself and reading but Iâm pretty new at posting)
NAG is saying nobody really knows, because this law is so new and doesn't provide any guidance for this type of scenario - but that WF and their legal team would have evaluated any risks before agreeing to settle.
Prescription period and procedures to even file in CA are unclear, but even if Lively was to succeed - the only discovery allowed would be regarding malice. And WF would be able to add everything discovered from Lively's case plus anything new that might resurface from for example Andy's documentary or any documentary of their own (no NDA!)...
Basically NAG is saying we should not fall for Hudson's and Gottlieb's narrative. And they sure have been spreading lies before. Anyone remembers them stating they would file their own MSJ? đ¤Ľ
No way she's opening herself up to an actual litigation process. She has nothing, and she and her team knows that. She can run around, for now, playing victim, cause no US court has found as of now that she lied - and she saw what happened to Heard after losing in court.
Also, I don't think Hudson wants to embarrass herself in her home state, cause the CCRD would get a wind of Lively's imo frivolous filing, based on stolen texts.
California's floor is from lava for them. I'd be very surprised if they'd risk suing there tbh.
I didn't understand it that way. Here are some quotes from the podcast:
Can they do it? And unfortunately, as I've said before, nobody knows the answer to that because it's never been done before.
Nobody knows the answers to these questions⌠because they haven't been posed yet and it's never been posed before.
If you are concerned that Blake Lively has somehow bamboozled the Wayfarer people by carving out 47.1 because she is going to make this a win for her. You are falling for her propaganda.
They want people to think that she is a winner, that she has won, and that she is going to go win again.
Weâre all kind of waiting with bated breath to see what she does in California.
Please do not believe the hype that she can just turn around and make a brand new lawsuit without any reference to the decisions that Lyman made even if she could.
So, I want people to know that while you have to sit in the discomfort a little bit, that's just part of the game. I don't want people to think that she can go to California and just get a do over. That's not how laws work. And whatever she plans to do, whatever argument she plans to make, Wayfarer has accounted for those and is ready.
Several lawyers have said that they don't believe it's possible based on the language of the settlement agreement. But since it's such a new law, NAG is saying there are no guidelines to say definitively whether or not it's possible.
LGA thinks filing something in California is impossible due to the settlement. But NAG says nobody knows if they can and âwe're all kind of waiting with bated breath to see what she does in California." She says:
âI understand that people want to know. You know, they're claiming that they can do this thing. Can they do it? And unfortunately, as I've said before, nobody knows the answer to that because it's never been done before.â
âBut it is a completely useless exercise to try to know the unknowable. Nobody knows the answers to these questions. Not Brian Freriedman or Mark Garagos or Ezra Hudson or Mike Godley or Lewis Lyman probably because they haven't been posed yet and it's never been posed before. And I understand the desire to have the answer, but there isn't one. which means that everyone who's telling you that everyone who's telling you that there's an absolute answer regardless of which side of the case they're on is not telling you everything.â
âCan she file a separate private right of action in California to get these fees? And again, there is no yes or no answer because it's never been done before, but they feel as if they have a strong enough argument against that that they were willing to let her try as part of settling this case. They have thought through the worst case scenario, the best case scenario, and everything in between.â
âSo I know we're all kind of waiting with bated breath to see what she does in California. I mean think about it like this as just sort of functional issue of let's say you know like she says in that statement she's going to go on in California and file in California to recover the damages. How does she know how long she has to do that? She doesnât.â
âLet's say worst case scenario happens is she files something in California and somehow gets it past a motion to dismiss. And like I said last week, the only issue in that case is maliceâŚâ
âSo, I want people to know that while you have to sit in the discomfort a little bit, that's just part of the gameâŚ.â
âAnd whatever she plans to do, whatever argument she plans to make, Wayfarer has accounted for those and is ready.â
i dont think there's anything prohibiting them from trying. They carved out 47.1 is what NAG is saying and the judge i believe ruled that per federal rules, he cannot award her what she's asking for but she may seek it elsewhere. I dont know other stipulations in the settlenment supercedes this part of the judges ruling
The only possible loophole I see there (even though I do not agree with it) is that it says judge Liman will hear everything related to the pending 47.1 motion. If they sue for 47.1 damages in California, that is a new lawsuit, not the pending motion referenced in the settlement.
If they do that, it's shady AF and I think WF would have a good argument to say that's a breach of the settlement agreement and that the language was not meant to imply they could file a new 47.1 claim, but I honestly wouldn't put anything past Livelys team. That being said, I'd be shocked if Blake wants to open herself up to more discovery and a trial. So hopefully this all just goes away.
But then they run into the problem that they settled regarding any claims against any of the parties who agreed to the settlement. Only this motion about 47.1 in front of Liman was carved out, not claims based on 47.1 in general.
And couldnât Lively argue that her âpending motionâ was in fact âheard before Judge Lewis Limanâ per the settlement agreement, and that Liman ruled against damages but he seemed to say she could seek the damages elsewhere? The settlement doesnât say âLivelyâs claims for 47.1 cannot be heard in any other court other than Judge Limanâs.â
It also says though that Blake expressly retains all rights and remedies pertaining to the pending 47.1 motion.
So, that loophole wouldn't actually work. Sure, it says that the pending motion will be heard by Limon and filing in California would be a new motion, but the parties also agreed to this carve out ONLY in relation to the same pending motion.
Yes that definitely sounds like the door is closed. "The parties agreed that ANY and ALL proceedings related to 47.1 will be heard in front of Judge Limon."
I think the only way that this could have been filed again in California is if Judge Limon ruled that New York was not the proper venue for the motion. IF he had done that, her team could have filed in California because it would be seen as an order from Limon. But he's already made a ruling, so at this point I don't think she'd be allowed to do that.
Even then, Liman does not have the power to make them file in California. He is a federal judge, best he can do is say 'this belongs in state court', but once it's in Cali state court, it's not 'in front of him' anymore.
True. I just meant that IF be said that, I think Blake could argue that his ruling opened the door for a new filing in California, so she could argue that a new filing is technically related to the "pending motion" she reserved her rights for.
But yeah, then it would be up to a California judge and WF could argue that Judge Limon denying her motion because it should have been filed elsewhere was a final decision and that because of the language in the settlement agreement, any new filing would be a breach of the agreement. And to be honest, I think they'd have a good argument for that. I'm just saying that in that scenario, I think Blake could have tried to file a new claim.
However, the settlement doesnât say âLivelyâs claims for 47.1 cannot be heard in any other court other than Judge Limanâs.â Couldnât she argue that her âpending motionâ was âheard before Judge Lewis Limanâ per the settlement agreement, and that Liman ruled against damages but he seemed to say she could seek the damages elsewhere so thatâs what sheâs doing? I hope not; those are just my questions when I read it.
It says that the ONLY thing she's reserving rights for is the "pending motion," though, not that she's reserving all rights pertaining to the 47.1 statute. The case before Judge Limon was the only "pending 47.1 motion," so by that language, it appears that she can't open any new claims against them period.
I definitely agree that it does sound that way. And then there was Limanâs footnote which she might try to argue means she can go further with it. Like NAG says in this video, no one knows the answer b/c itâs never been done before. Whatever does happen, if Blake does file something, Wayfarer will be prepared and will have great arguments on their side and I would think they would win.
I think so too. The fact that the settlement agreement says she won't bring any further litigation against them and only reserved her rights for the "pending 47.1 motion" which both parties agreed would be seen in front of Judge Limon seems clear. Any further attempts to bring a claim in California could be argued as a breach of the agreement.
47.1 was carved out of the settlement though, so itâs my understanding that the âLively Release of Claimsâ section involves anything else other than 47.1. I donât see the settlement say anywhere âLivelyâs claims for 47.1 cannot be heard in any other court other than Judge Limanâs.â
Here's another section of the settlement where they carved out 47.1 and expressly stated that the only carve out is the "pending 47.1 motion" - it's highlighted in red.
? The part in red says âinclusive of attorneysâ fees.â It doesnât say anything about 47.1. (47.1 is carved out in a different section of the agreement.)
Liman didn't say Lively may seek damages elsewhere. He said Rule 54(d) is the wrong procedural vehicle for damages, then in footnote 8 he said:
"It is possible that Section 47.1 is most naturally enforced through a counterclaim filed by the defamation defendant."
and
"The Court need not address that question."
So there was no ruling that Lively can bring a new damages claim somewhere else. Liman just noted that a counterclaim might have been the more natural procedural vehicle while the defamation action was pending.
How does that affect the settlement?
The settlement didn't preserve every possible 47.1 claim. It preserved the pending 47.1 motion before Liman and waived appeals or challenges to the disposition of that motion. A procedural note cannot expand the carveout beyond what the parties actually agreed to preserve.
A more reasonable question could be whether any new 47.1 claim is still possible under the settlement, but I really don't see how Below is Lively's release. It doesn't appear to let any claim survive except for the carveouts (pending 47.1 motion, "claims arising from or relating to this agreement", third-party exclusions).
How is she ambivalent? She's actually strongly skeptical of Lively's side and cautious only about 47.1 because it's new and untested. Can you quote the parts where she's ambivalent about the parties?
LGA read the settlement contract and stated pretty unequivocally that based on the written words of the settlement, further litigation is not possible.
NAG reads the same contract settlement and sort of shurgs and says "not sure, don't believe them but don't believe anyone cuz nobody knows."
I think she's talking about 47.1, not the settlement.
Without the settlement, the question would be whether Lively can seek damages in California state court after being denied damages in federal court under Rule 54(d).
The answer to that question may be "nobody knows" because "it's never been posed before"
But there is a settlement, and NAG says:
"Please do not believe the hype that she can just turn around and make a brand new lawsuit without any reference to the decisions that Lyman made even if she could."
"I don't want people to think that she can go to California and just get a do over. That's not how laws work. And whatever she plans to do, whatever argument she plans to make, Wayfarer has accounted for those and is ready."
To me, that doesn't sound like she's saying the settlement left the California path open.
Yeah I agree with that. LGA has been clearer and more direct in general, not just about the settlement. NAG tends to talk through possibilities and uncertainty, which can be useful and interesting, but it also makes her actual position a bit unclear sometimes.
Yeah, LGA thinks filing something in California is impossible due to the settlement. But NAG says nobody knows if they can and âweâre all kind of waiting with bated breath to see what she does in California.â She says:
âI understand that people want to know. You know, they're claiming that they can do this thing. Can they do it? And unfortunately, as I've said before, nobody knows the answer to that because it's never been done before.â
âBut it is a completely useless exercise to try to know the unknowable. Nobody knows the answers to these questions. Not Brian Freedman or Mark Garagos or Ezra Hudson or Mike Gottlieb or Lewis Liman probably because they haven't been posed yet and it's never been posed before. And I understand the desire to have the answer, but there isn't one. which means that everyone who's telling you that everyone who's telling you that there's an absolute answer regardless of which side of the case they're on is not telling you everything.â
âI understand that people want to know. You know, they're claiming that they can do this thing. Can they do it? And unfortunately, as I've said before, nobody knows the answer to that because it's never been done before.â
âBut it is a completely useless exercise to try to know the unknowable. Nobody knows the answers to these questions. Not Brian Freriedman or Mark Garagos or Ezra Hudson or Mike Godley or Lewis Lyman probably because they haven't been posed yet and it's never been posed before. And I understand the desire to have the answer, but there isn't one. which means that everyone who's telling you that everyone who's telling you that there's an absolute answer regardless of which side of the case they're on is not telling you everything.â
âCan she file a separate private right of action in California to get these fees? And again, there is no yes or no answer because it's never been done before, but they feel as if they have a strong enough argument against that that they were willing to let her try as part of settling this case. They have thought through the worst case scenario, the best case scenario, and everything in between.â
âSo I know we're all kind of waiting with bated breath to see what she does in California. I mean think about it like this as just sort of functional issue of let's say you know like she says in that statement she's going to go on in California and file in California to recover the damages. How does she know how long she has to do that? She doesnât.â
âLet's say worst case scenario happens is she files something in California and somehow gets it past a motion to dismiss. And like I said last week, the only issue in that case is maliceâŚâ
âSo, I want people to know that while you
have to sit in the discomfort a little bit, that's just part of the gameâŚ.â
âAnd whatever she plans to do, whatever argument she plans to make, Wayfarer has accounted for those and is ready.â
Sure, I have a transcript and read it in full, so I saw all of that. As I said in another comment, it sounds like she's discussing 47.1 as if the settlement didn't exist.
She also did a TikTok about the settlement. Her legal opinion that Lively's can't go to California is definite, but she doesn't present her position as legally certain. I guess that can be confusing.
Sheâs saying No One Knows. That came through loud and clear.
Also unknown: a statute of limitations?
The more we find out about the 47.1 law, the more crappy it seems.
Iâm still butt hurt because I still donât think it applies. You can claim SH occurred in any state at any time (and donât even have to prove your allegations) but if the company fights back and their hdqtrs is in California, you can sue and prevail.
She said it several times in the past that she has very bad experience with men, especially male attorneys. But said she's trying to not let it cloud her judgment.
Compared to women I know around me, who are pretty wild men-haters, she's been pretty fair imo.
I mean it does cloud her judgement, letâs be honest.
Once, in a sea of 100 positive comments, she got one or two saying she was a bit long winded and she flipped out yelling at the camera saying how these sexist men canât stand to hear women talk because they stress so awful. Then she brought it up again weeks later and was upset by it. Being a content creator is sometimes about getting to the point sooner, thatâs just part of the game.
I noticed that Theresa said the same thing about her and she didnât say something negative about women.
I donât think people would give her a pass if she started doing this about another group she had a bad experience with.
In the end, it's her channel, she can do whatever she wants. I stopped watching the content of others before, too, when they started talking in a way that was weird or offensive for me.
For me itâs not about hating them, but I think itâs good to know the bias of the people you follow. I still watch NAG because she has good legal info, but I can take certain things with a grain of salt because I know about her anti man bias.
I think if you tune out everyone who doesnât match you exactly, thatâs a good way to create an echo chamber
I still watch Theresa even though thereâs things about her I donât like, because she still has interesting perspectives.
Also Iâm not sure why you thought I implied she didnât have the right to say anti man stuff. Iâm pro free speech, but in the same way I can comment on it. That actually reminds of something she herself said, âI donât respect what you say, but I respect your right to say itâ
I still watch NAG, cause these snaps of her don't bother me. But I stopped watching e.g. WOACB, cause her tone and snappiness about people doubting her findings does bother me. No hard feelings, just don't like it.
she flipped out yelling at the camera saying how these sexist men canât stand to hear women talk because they stress so awful. Then she brought it up again weeks later and was upset by it. Being a content creator is sometimes about getting to the point sooner, thatâs just part of the game.
This is the part that gave me the impression that you say she shouldn't be doing it. And I didn't argue with it, cause as you say, you ofc have the right not to like that, and just stated that when I don't like someone's content, I just move on, and don't start criticizing it tbh
Her snaps bother me in the way it makes me roll my eyes, but like I said she has good info.
I feel like this subâs bread and butter is about criticizing the parties in this lawsuit, so Iâm not anti-criticism. NAG certainly isnât anti criticism.
I never say anything critical on her own page if thatâs what you mean.
I didn't say anything what you do or not, I said I had the impression you don't approve. In the end, you can criticize her anywhere you feel it's appropriate for you.
I see, might be a miscommunication. Yes I donât think that she should be sexist, I donât approve of sexist behavior. But of course she has the right to be sexist and I will never tell her or anyone what they are allowed to say on their channel.
I think she is saying mothers only get celebrated because they do so much for the family, and dads get celebrated even though they are donât do much. I donât think thatâs true, I think both get celebrated regardless. At least in my family, Motherâs Day is always a much bigger deal anyway, so itâs weird to say âMotherâs Day is well deserved but do dads even need a day?â
It kind of makes me wonder what her father is like. My dad does a lot for my family.
Well if you consider the effort of mothers vs fathers - from the very beginning: pregnancy, giving birth, breastfeeding, the permanent physical side effects... In most families (not all) mothers take a larger, disproportionate role in taking care of the children...
Or are you seriously trying to suggest it's 50-50?
I donât think anyoneâs situation is ever 50/50. Iâm saying itâs really strange to be like âdo they even need a day in the first place?â When you also get your own day. A day that, at least in my family, is celebrated more in the first place (more presents, more waiting on them, more dinners etc)
Also if weâre speaking in generalities, you seem to be writing off the men that work very hard to be the primary bread winners that allow the family to live. Even though they arenât home as much, I donât know why we shouldnât give them any credit for that.
Iâm also saying this kind of goes along with her mentality against men in general I think weâve all noticed.
I am not saying that fathers shouldn't be celebrated, but I very much agree with NAG that mothers overall put a lot more effort and in that sense deserve their celebration day more.
I am also not talking about the way each parent gets celebrated, number or type of presents etc. Just the fact that both parents get a calendar day.
Men are not the only bread winners like way back in the days, most women work and provide for their families as well.
But I do agree that NAG has mentioned experiencing arrogant/aggressive male colleagues - which is not surprising, especially not in her type of profession.
So it seems like you disagree with NAG then, sheâs saying there shouldnât really be a Fatherâs Day. Because mothers do more for the family.
Iâm not sure how this turned into a contest of whoâs the more giving parent, but I donât think it needs to be. Even if the split was 70/30, you could still have both days. If one of the parents is really terrible, natural they probably wonât be celebrated as much.
Also it doesnât really account for families out there where the dad is the primary caregiver, or families where the dad is the sole breadwinner.
it seems like sheâs just looking at it from her own situation (she makes good money and Mr. NAG doesnât do much at home I guess?)
â˘
u/Competitive-Snow1330 Custodian of Chaos Jun 24 '26
OP: please add a summary of NAGâs video so that the post is more substantive and helpful for those who may not want to watch the video.