In a dramatic courtroom twist that could rival one of her film scripts, Blake Lively scored a major legal victory this week. A Texas federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by PR consultant Jed Wallace and his firm, Street Relations Inc., accusing the actress of wrongfully implicating him in her sexual harassment claims against It Ends With Us co-star Justin Baldoni.

The ruling effectively clears all active suits brought against Lively by Baldoni’s circle — at least for now.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra dismissed the case without prejudice, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. The court, he ruled, had no authority to hear the matter because Wallace failed to provide any evidence establishing jurisdiction.

“It is plaintiffs’ burden to establish personal jurisdiction … and they have failed to present any recognized method of discovery,” Ezra wrote, declining to evaluate the merits of the case.

Lively’s Legal Streak Continues

A spokesperson for Lively called the decision a clean sweep.

“All retaliatory lawsuits filed against Blake Lively by Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and their PR and digital teams have now been dismissed,” they said, adding that Lively “will have her day in court on her own claims this March in New York.”

But Wallace’s attorney, Chip Babcock of Jackson Walker LLP, expressed disappointment, insisting that Lively was the first to bring her claims in Texas and vowing to explore appellate options.

The Origin of the Legal Firestorm

The tangle of lawsuits stems from a December 2024 complaint Lively filed with California’s Civil Rights Department, alleging that Baldoni, who also directed It Ends With Us, sexually harassed her on set. She claimed his team, including PR consultant Wallace, retaliated with a smear campaign once she spoke out.

Baldoni later fired back with defamation suits in January against both Lively and The New York Times, which reported on her allegations. Those cases were dismissed in June. In February, Wallace and Street Relations struck back with their own defamation claim, seeking $1 million in damages for reputational harm and $6 million in punitive damages.

Lively moved to dismiss in April, accusing them of trying to “drag her into a foreign court that lacks jurisdiction.” She argued that their claims overlapped with her pending New York federal case, which Judge Ezra ultimately agreed with.

Judge Rejects ‘Texas Targeting’ Argument

Judge Ezra dismantled Wallace’s argument that Texas jurisdiction applied because Lively’s California complaint mentioned him as a Texas resident. Such mentions, he ruled, were merely biographical.

The judge also shot down the idea that her statements were specifically “directed toward” Texas audiences. Even if the remarks were shared with The New York Times and republished globally, he found no indication that they targeted Texas readers in particular.

SXSW Moment Not Defamatory, Court Says

Wallace’s team also pointed to an incident at the SXSW festival in Austin, where a local confronted Lively about the controversy, shouting “Blake lies.” They argued that Lively’s silence in response implied guilt — but Judge Ezra disagreed.

“Silence alone doesn’t constitute a defamatory statement,” he wrote, finding the claim insufficient to establish jurisdiction or defamation.

Although the judge acknowledged that Wallace hadn’t conducted extensive discovery, he emphasized that the broader dispute has been litigated for nearly a year across multiple courts, and Wallace’s side had still failed to provide any substantial evidence.

Counsel Lineup

Wallace and Street Relations are represented by Carl C. Butzer, Charles L. Babcock, J. Matthew Dow, Minoo Blaesche, Joel R. Glover, and Cody L. Vaughn of Jackson Walker LLP.

Lively’s defense team includes Laura L. Prather, Catherine L. Robb, Michael J. Lambert, and Reid Pillifant of Haynes and Boone LLP.

As the legal dust settles, one thing is certain — Blake Lively’s victory in Texas adds momentum to her upcoming New York showdown, where the actress will finally tell her side of the story in court.