Blake Lively Wins Money for Lawyer Costs
Blake Lively Wins Money for Lawyer Costs
Blake Lively 獲勝可請求律師費
Introduction
A judge says Blake Lively can get money from Justin Baldoni. This money pays for her lawyers.
法官表示 Blake Lively 可以從 Justin Baldoni 處獲得資金，用以支付她的律師費。
Main Body
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni had a big fight. They worked together on a movie. Blake said Justin was mean to her. Then, Justin said Blake told lies about him. He sued her in court.
Blake Lively 和 Justin Baldoni 發生了激烈的爭執。他們曾合作拍攝電影，Blake 表示 Justin 對她很刻薄。隨後，Justin 聲稱 Blake 散佈關於他的謊言，因此將她告上法庭。
In June 2025, the judge stopped Justin's case. The judge said Justin did not have proof. He said Blake did not lie. Now, Justin must pay for Blake's lawyers because of a law in California.
在 2025 年 6 月，法官駁回了 Justin 的訴訟。法官表示 Justin 缺乏證據，且 Blake 並未撒謊。根據加州法律，Justin 現在必須支付 Blake 的律師費。
Blake asked for more money to punish Justin. The judge said no to this. Blake and Justin agreed to stop fighting in May. They did not give each other money in that agreement.
Blake 要求更多資金以懲罰 Justin，但法官拒絕了。Blake 與 Justin 已於 5 月同意停止爭端，而該協議中並未規定彼此支付款項。
Conclusion
The judge says Justin must pay for the lawyers, but Blake cannot get extra punishment money.
法官判定 Justin 必須支付律師費，但 Blake 不能獲得額外的懲罰性賠償。
Vocabulary Learning
💸 Who does what?
In this story, we see how to talk about giving and getting money. Look at these two opposite directions:
1. Money goes OUT (Paying)
- Justin must pay for Blake's lawyers.
- Pattern: Person A pays Person B.
2. Money comes IN (Getting)
- Blake can get money from Justin.
- Pattern: Person A gets Person B.
🕒 Time Words
To reach A2, you need to show when things happen. The text uses simple dates to organize the story:
- June 2025 The judge stopped the case.
- May They agreed to stop fighting.
Quick Tip: Use "In + [Month/Year]" to tell a story in order.
Example: In January, I started school. In February, I learned English.
Vocabulary Learning
Court Decision on Legal Fees in Lively v. Baldoni Case
Lively 訴 Baldoni 案中關於法律費用的法院裁決
Introduction
A federal judge has decided that actress Blake Lively can recover certain legal costs from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios LLC after their countersuit was dismissed.
一名聯邦法官裁定，在反訴被駁回後，女演員 Blake Lively 可以向 Justin Baldoni 和 Wayfarer Studios LLC 追回部分法律費用。
Main Body
The legal battle began in late 2024 when Ms. Lively accused Mr. Baldoni and his production company of sexual harassment and retaliation during the filming of 'It Ends With Us'. In response, Mr. Baldoni filed a countersuit in January 2025, claiming defamation and extortion against Ms. Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. He asserted that her claims were simply a plan to gain creative control of the movie. However, Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed this countersuit in June 2025.
這場法律之爭始於 2024 年底，當時 Lively 小姐指控 Baldoni 先生及其製作公司在拍攝《It Ends With Us》期間存在性騷擾與報復行為。作為回應，Baldoni 先生於 2025 年 1 月提起反訴，指控 Lively 小姐及其丈夫 Ryan Reynolds 誹謗與敲詐。他聲稱她的指控僅僅是為了奪取電影創意控制權的計劃。然而，Liman 法官於 2025 年 6 月駁回了這項反訴。
This latest ruling focuses on California Civil Code Section 47.1, which is a law designed to stop people from using defamation lawsuits to silence reports of sexual misconduct. Judge Liman emphasized that because the defamation claim was dismissed and the plaintiffs failed to prove that Ms. Lively acted with bad intentions, the law requires the plaintiffs to pay her legal fees.
此次裁決的重點在於《加州民法典》第 47.1 條，該法律旨在防止他人利用誹謗訴訟來掩蓋對性不端行為的舉報。Liman 法官強調，由於誹謗指控已被駁回，且原告未能證明 Lively 小姐具有惡意，因此法律要求原告支付她的法律費用。
Despite this, the court rejected Ms. Lively's request for punitive damages, stating that federal procedural rules take priority. Furthermore, although the two parties reached a settlement in May without exchanging money, the court confirmed that Ms. Lively can still seek further damages through other legal paths. It is important to note that the court had previously dismissed Ms. Lively's own harassment claims because her status as an independent contractor meant she could not bring that specific type of legal action.
儘管如此，法院拒絕了 Lively 小姐要求懲罰性賠償的請求，並表示聯邦程序規則具有優先權。此外，雖然雙方於 5 月達成不涉及金錢交易的和解，但法院確認 Lively 小姐仍可透過其他法律途徑尋求進一步賠償。值得注意的是，法院此前駁回了 Lively 小姐本身的騷擾指控，因為其獨立承包商的身份意味著她無法採取該類特定的法律行動。
Conclusion
In summary, the court has allowed the recovery of legal fees under California law but has denied the request for additional punitive damages.
總結來說，法院根據加州法律允許追回法律費用，但拒絕了額外懲罰性賠償的請求。
Vocabulary Learning
🚀 The 'B2 Power Shift': From Simple Verbs to Complex Actions
At the A2 level, we use simple verbs like say, give, or ask. But to move toward B2, you need Precision Verbs. These are words that tell us not just what happened, but how and why it happened in a professional or formal context.
🔍 The Transformation
Look at how the article upgrades basic ideas into B2-level language:
-
Instead of "said" "Asserted"
- A2: He said her claims were a plan.
- B2: He asserted that her claims were simply a plan.
- Why? "Asserted" means to say something with strong confidence and authority.
-
Instead of "gave back/paid" "Recover"
- A2: She can get her money back for the lawyers.
- B2: Lively can recover certain legal costs.
- Why? In professional English, "recover" is used when you legally get back money that was spent or lost.
-
Instead of "stop" "Silence"
- A2: The law stops people from talking.
- B2: ...designed to stop people from using lawsuits to silence reports.
- Why? "Silence" as a verb implies a powerful force making someone stop speaking. It creates a much stronger image than "stop."
🛠️ Practical Application: The "Precision Swap"
To sound more like a B2 speaker, stop using "general" verbs. Try this mental map:
| A2 General Verb | B2 Precision Alternative | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Give | Provide / Allocate | Formal resources/info |
| Start | Initiate / Commence | Official processes |
| Check | Verify / Confirm | Proving something is true |
| Show | Demonstrate / Illustrate | Using evidence |
Pro Tip: Notice how the text uses "emphasized" instead of "said clearly." This tells the reader that the judge wanted this specific point to be the most important part of the message.
Vocabulary Learning
Judicial Determination Regarding Legal Fee Recovery in Lively v. Baldoni
關於 Lively 訴 Baldoni 案中法律費用追討的司法裁定
Introduction
A federal judge has ruled that actress Blake Lively is entitled to recover specific legal costs from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios LLC following the dismissal of their countersuit.
一名聯邦法官裁定，在對方的反訴被撤回後，女演員 Blake Lively 有權向 Justin Baldoni 及 Wayfarer Studios LLC 追討特定的法律費用。
Main Body
The litigation originated in late 2024 when Ms. Lively alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Mr. Baldoni and his production entity during the filming of 'It Ends With Us'. In response, Mr. Baldoni initiated a countersuit in January 2025, alleging defamation and extortion against Ms. Lively and her spouse, Ryan Reynolds, asserting that the initial claims were a stratagem to acquire creative control of the production. This countersuit, along with a separate action against The New York Times, was dismissed by Judge Lewis J. Liman in June 2025.
這場訴訟始於 2024 年底，當時 Lively 女士指控 Baldoni 先生及其製作實體在拍攝《It Ends With Us》期間對其進行性騷擾與報復。作為回應，Baldoni 先生於 2025 年 1 月提起反訴，指控 Lively 女士及其配偶 Ryan Reynolds 誹謗與敲詐，並聲稱最初的指控是為了獲取製作主導權的策略。這項反訴以及另一項針對《紐約時報》的行動，於 2025 年 6 月被法官 Lewis J. Liman 撤銷。
Central to the current ruling is the application of California Civil Code Section 47.1, a statutory mechanism designed to preclude the use of retaliatory defamation suits to silence allegations of sexual misconduct. Judge Liman determined that because the defamation claim was dismissed and the defendants failed to provide evidence of malice on the part of Ms. Lively, the statutory requirement for the plaintiff to bear the defendant's legal fees was triggered.
本次裁定的核心在於加州民法典第 47.1 條的應用，這是一個旨在防止利用報復性誹謗訴訟來掩蓋性騷擾指控的法定機制。Liman 法官認定，由於誹謗指控已被撤銷，且原告未能提供 Lively 女士具有惡意的證據，因此觸發了法定要求，由原告承擔被告的法律費用。
Notwithstanding the recovery of costs, the court denied Ms. Lively's request for punitive damages and the tripling of damages, citing the primacy of federal procedural rules. While the parties reached a settlement in May—which reportedly involved no monetary exchange—the court maintained the right for Ms. Lively to pursue further damages through independent legal channels. Previously, the court had dismissed Ms. Lively's own harassment claims on the grounds that her status as an independent contractor precluded such a cause of action.
儘管允許追討費用，但法院拒絕了 Lively 女士關於懲罰性賠償及三倍賠償的請求，理由是聯邦程序規則優先。雖然雙方於 5 月達成和解——據報導不涉及金錢交易——但法院維持了 Lively 女士透過獨立法律途徑追求進一步賠償的權利。此前，法院已以 Lively 女士作為獨立承包商的身份不符合起訴條件為由，撤銷了其提出的騷擾指控。
Conclusion
The court has authorized the recovery of legal fees under California law while denying requests for punitive damages.
法院根據加州法律授權追討法律費用，但拒絕了懲罰性賠償的請求。
Vocabulary Learning
⚖️ The Architecture of 'Legal Formalism' and Nominalization
To transition from B2 to C2, a student must move beyond describing events and begin conceptualizing them through Nominalization—the process of turning verbs and adjectives into nouns to create an objective, detached, and authoritative tone.
🔍 The Linguistic Pivot: From Action to Entity
Observe the density of the text. A B2 learner might write: "The judge decided that Lively could get her money back because the court dismissed the case."
Compare this to the C2 professional register used in the article:
"...the statutory requirement for the plaintiff to bear the defendant's legal fees was triggered."
Analysis: The action is no longer about a person doing something; it is about a requirement being triggered. This shifts the focus from the agents (the people) to the mechanisms (the law). This is the hallmark of high-level academic and legal English.
🛠️ High-Leverage Vocabulary Decryption
| Term | C2 Nuance | Contextual Application |
|---|---|---|
| Stratagem | Not just a 'plan,' but a calculated, often deceptive maneuver. | Used here to imply a malicious motive behind the litigation. |
| Preclude | Stronger than 'prevent'; it means to make something impossible by a prior action or rule. | The status as a contractor precluded the cause of action. |
| Primacy | The state of being first in importance or authority. | The federal rules took precedence over state requests. |
🧩 Syntactic Sophistication: The 'Notwithstanding' Bridge
Notice the use of "Notwithstanding..." at the start of the final paragraph.
Notwithstanding [Noun Phrase], [Main Clause]
This structure is a powerhouse for C2 writing because it allows the writer to acknowledge a counter-fact while simultaneously dismissing its impact on the primary point. It replaces the clunkier "Despite the fact that..." with a streamlined, formal prepositional phrase that signals intellectual maturity.
C2 Application Tip: Whenever you want to contrast a victory with a limitation (e.g., "Notwithstanding the increase in sales, the company remains in debt"), use this structure to instantly elevate your discourse from 'competent' to 'masterful'.