Also ngl Vince's new lawyer (who came from MLW after that lawsuit funny enough) seems pretty bad anyway so it's just easy for me to imagine it's her. But he does have more than one either way and she's newer too so again, idk

Grimoire Lenin said:

Yeah it's probable. I might just be taking the wording of the article too literally as well when it says "former lawyer of Vince McMahon".

Click to expand...

Oh I missed that anyway actually, seems like it could be then. Jerry isn't exactly famous outside of the wrestling world so no surprise he wouldn't be named too

Doge probably ruled that it's too inefficient to investigate rich people so fire all of them too

Also yeah just read the article and it sucks lol what I'm 99% sure the lawyer is saying is that the probe was dropped months ago (when the fines were announced that he paid the feds and WWE for hiding the payments) which is probably true. The fact that the documents withheld may have been illegal is a new thing, probably doesn't reopen the case but doesn't necessarily mean it won't.

So literally no news in the "exclusive" from the Post, just a new comment from Vince's lawyer to dismiss the most recent story like they always do

Vince McMahon’s legal team on Friday filed an expected opposition to Janel Grant’s attempt to amend her lawsuit against him, WWE, and former executive John Laurinaitis. This latest filing from McMahon is in response to Grant’s expanded complaint, which added new details and allegations against McMahon and others.

WWE filed its separate opposition to Grant’s amendment on Friday evening.

The oppositions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, presents cases to block Grant’s motion to amend her complaint, arguing that her request is untimely. McMahon’s filing goes further, claiming the expanded complaint is made in bad faith.

Grant’s lawsuit alleges that when she was a WWE employee she was sexually assaulted by McMahon and Laurinaitis, and trafficking by McMahon, who was allegedly enabled by the company.

“[Grant’s] filing is teeming with proposed additional allegations” that were available to her when she filed her initial complaint “and is a bad faith attempt to use this Court’s docket to gain an advantage in the court of public opinion,” wrote McMahon’s attorneys, led by Jessica T. Rosenberg of the Akin Gump firm.

McMahon’s lawyers argue that any new allegations related to his alleged coercion of Grant into signing a January 2022 NDA, which is a central element in the legal case, are irrelevant because she accepted the first $1 million settlement payment. By keeping the financial compensation, they argue, Grant effectively ratified the contract, nullifying any claims of duress.

WWE’s filing argues against that the notion raised by Grant’s attorneys, that the SEC settlement with McMahon in January is “a material development that his highly relevant”. The company’s legal representation, led by Daniel Toal of Paul Weiss, claim that the SEC settlement only supports the validity of the NDA between McMahon and Grant, as the SEC presupposed that the contract was enforceable. Therefore, in WWE’s view, and that of the other defendants, the arbitration clause in the NDA should be upheld, moving this matter out of public court.

An attorney for Laurinaitis submitted a filing later on Friday, adopting the arguments asserted by McMahon’s team. As of Friday afternoon, WWE’s attorneys had yet to submit a filing in opposition to the amendment.

McMahon’s side contends that Grant has provided no legitimate reason for the delay in filing the amendment and that many of the proposed changes—few of which, they say, are even new allegations—are legally futile.

The filing accuses Grant’s legal team of attempting to inject “stale” allegations for media attention, citing her attorneys’ previous statements. The opposition document also asserts that many of Grant’s new claims stem from information she purportedly had when the lawsuit was initially filed but chose not to include at the time.

Grant’s team put out a press release simultaneously with the filing of her updated complaint last month. McMahon characterized the press release as “tabloid-style,” citing its claims that the amended lawsuit contained “never-before-seen text and voice messages from McMahon” that “pull[] back the curtain on the dangerous workplace culture McMahon created at WWE.”

“The Proposed Amended Complaint is the fulfillment of [Grant’s] stated objective to bring ‘more firepower’ to her case from a PR perspective,” McMahon’s new filing stated, referencing remarks made by Grant’s attorney Ann Callis during a media call last September.

Callis, in that call, emphasized the need for stronger public messaging, stating that “[Grant] deserves to be portrayed as a survivor of human trafficking and sexual abuse. To that end, we recently brought on additional firepower through Kendra [Barkoff Lamy] and her team at SKDK.”

Grant’s proposed amended complaint, submitted in late January, significantly expanded the length of her original lawsuit, growing from 67 to 101 pages. Among the new allegations, Grant claims McMahon instructed her to create explicit content for WWE creative executive Michael Hayes and that McMahon shared explicit images of her without her consent. The complaint also states that McMahon attempted to arrange a sexual encounter between Grant and WWE star Brock Lesnar as part of his contract negotiations.

Further, the lawsuit details McMahon’s alleged involvement in directing Grant to undergo treatments at Dr. Carlon Colker’s clinic, Peak Wellness, where she claims she was prescribed substances without knowing what they were. Colker, previously referred to in the lawsuit as “Celebrity Doctor,” is now identified by name, and Grant reserves the right to add him as a defendant.

WWE also argued against Grant’s claims that allegations against Colker present any new facts that justify amending her lawsuit, despite Grant’s petition in Connecticut state court for records from the doctor.

“The fact that Grant hopes to obtain additional information in a separate action at some point in the future does not provide good cause to amend,” WWE’s lawyers stated.

The complaint also explicitly names WWE executives who were previously anonymized. WWE President Nick Khan, former Chief Operating Officer Brad Blum, and former General Counsel Brian Nurse are now referenced in the complaint. They are not accused of any physical abuse, but Grant alleges executives enabled McMahon.

McMahon’s opposition to the updated lawsuit characterizes changes to her complaint like those as merely a PR tactic that doesn’t add meaningful legal substance to her case.

McMahon maintains that the SEC’s action in January to penalize him $400,000 and order him to repay WWE $1.3 million is a procedural matter, not an admission of misconduct. The defendant’s attorneys emphasized that Grant had already made clear her intent to amend her complaint before the SEC’s decision was even made public.

Grant’s legal team frames the SEC penalties as further evidence of McMahon’s attempts to obscure financial transactions related to his alleged misconduct.

The timing of McMahon’s opposition follows a federal appeals court decision made earlier this month that upheld a lower court’s decision forcing McMahon and his former attorney to turn over documents to a grand jury. The ruling confirmed that prosecutors established probable cause that McMahon engaged in a scheme to circumvent WWE’s internal controls to conceal NDA payments tied to sexual misconduct allegations.

McMahon’s legal team insists that the investigation is over and will not result in criminal charges.

Judge Sarah F. Russell will determine whether Grant will be allowed to proceed with her amended complaint. If the court denies her motion, the lawsuit will remain in its original form, as filed in January 2024.

All three defendants have previously sought to move this case to private arbitration and will likely refile motions to do so after a decision is made on whether Grant’s amended complaint will stand.

WWE contends that nothing in what Grant added in her proposed complaint “moves the needle on WWE’s motion to compel [arbitration]”.

“Rather than alleging new facts purportedly relevant to the question of enforceability of the arbitration provision,” WWE’s attorneys stated, “Grant merely asserts the legal conclusion that she was “coerced and fraudulently induced to accept the arbitration provision.'”

“If anything, these new paragraphs strengthen WWE’s motion to compel by confirming that Grant was specifically aware of the arbitration provision before signing the Agreement because her attorney brought it to her attention,” the company’s lawyers added.

Janel Grant filed a reply brief on Friday, pushing back against arguments by defendants Vince McMahon, WWE, and John Laurinaitis to block her amended complaint, which adds to her allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking which the defendants deny.

The latest filing from Grant, who was a WWE employee at the time of the alleged abuse, argues that the federal district court in Connecticut should allow the expanded version of her lawsuit to be the one litigated. Developments that have emerged since her original filing in January 2024, should be considered, she says. That includes the Securities and Exchange Commission’s findings that McMahon engaged in — what Grant characterizes as — a scheme to conceal misconduct.

McMahon and WWE each filed on February 21 their oppositions to Grant’s motion to amend her complaint. Filings from Laurinaitis indicate he’s in agreement with McMahon. The defendants argued that Grant is misusing the court to generate publicity. In Friday’s filing, Grant rejected their claims, asserting that she initially withheld certain details — including the names of high-ranking WWE executives, including company President Nick Khan, who she alleges enabled McMahon — out of concern for an active criminal investigation into McMahon by the federal prosecutors. Executives other than McMahon and Laurinaitis are not alleged to have directly participated in abuse. Now that the stay that was imposed from June to December 2024 has ended, Grant’s attorneys say she is entitled to present a fuller picture of the alleged abuse, including identifying individuals who she says facilitated it.

“While certain facts were available at the time the original complaint was filed, Ms. Grant tried to exercise caution with respect to certain subjects to ensure that her civil suit would not frustrate the DOJ’s efforts,” wrote Grant’s attorneys, led by Ann Callis.

McMahon’s legal team denies Grant’s allegations against him and has stated that prosecutors’ criminal investigation into his conduct has ended without charges. A decision from federal appeals court judges last month seemed to undermine that notion about the status of the investigation when that court referred to the investigation as “ongoing”. One of McMahon’s attorneys last month stated the investigation is finished, “with no ambiguity”. When we asked McMahon’s representatives last month if they had written documentation showing that the criminal investigation had concluded, they didn’t respond.

One of the significant disputes in Grant’s filing is the relevance of the SEC’s findings against McMahon. WWE and McMahon’s attorneys argue that the SEC’s settlement and fines levied this past January were about financial disclosure violations, not the allegations of coercion and sexual abuse at the center of Grant’s case. The defendants contend that the regulatory action has no bearing on whether Grant was forced into signing a nondisclosure agreement under duress. Grant’s legal team disagrees, asserting that the SEC’s order referenced the NDA at issue in her lawsuit as well as McMahon’s efforts to conceal settlements with at least one other woman.

“These facts are material to this Court’s assessment of whether the illegal NDA agreement can be enforced,” Grant’s attorney wrote. “Defendants hope to obscure these facts, or at least avoid having to address them while operating under the Amended Complaint, while using the arbitration clause contained in that illegal agreement as both a sword and shield in this case.”

The defendants have so far strongly pushed to move Grant’s case into private arbitration, citing the relevant clause in the NDA that she signed and that McMahon signed on behalf of both himself and WWE in January 2022.

Friday’s filing also raises information from Grant’s related case in state court in Connecticut involving Dr. Carlon Colker and his clinic Peak Wellness, the medical facility that Grant says McMahon directed her to go to for treatments she alleges she did not fully understand. Grant’s attorneys stated that Colker’s legal team has admitted withholding her medical records, a claim they argue supports her allegations that McMahon controlled multiple aspects of her life, including her medical treatment. Grant’s petition against Colker for records related to her treatment is still ongoing in Connecticut Superior Court.

Callis provided the following statement shortly after this article was published:

“Ms. Grant is grateful and empowered by the support she has received from the community and looks forward to holding Vince McMahon, John Laurinaitis, and WWE accountable for facilitating the sex trafficking and abuse she endured at the company.”

Grant’s lawyers additionally argue that her updated complaint provides greater detail on the alleged coercion she endured, which the court should hear, stating that the amendments serve “to explain the extreme and prolonged abuse Plaintiff was withstanding with greater particularity. The coercion surrounding the agreement and arbitration clause is undeniably relevant to this Court’s assessment of Defendants’” intention to move the case to arbitration.

Among other arguments, McMahon and WWE have insisted that the arbitration clause in the NDA is enforceable due to Grant’s acceptance of the initial $1 million payment, the length of time — two years — she waited between signing the NDA and filing her lawsuit.

Judge Sarah F. Russell will decide whether to allow Grant’s updated 94-page complaint to formally become part of the case or whether to deny her motion and move forward with her original 67-page complaint, filed in January 2024.

Rn it's just up to the judge to decide if it has to go to arbitration or not, I don't believe there's even a deadline sadly. No more official filings need to be done by either side, this recent reply was even an optional one from what I understand