McMahon's attorneys claim Grant is attempting "to use this Court’s docket to gain an advantage in the court of public opinion"
wrestlenomics.com
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.
