Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
As PWInsider.com reported on 1/13, attorneys for Janel Grant filed another motion requesting a status conference in regard to Grant lawsuit against Vince McMahon, WWE and John Lauirinatis before the United States District of Connecticut. In the filing, Grant's attorneys noted they were writing "to inform the Court of the new status quo and request its guidance on how best to move this litigation forward" after the SEC announcement of charges brought against McMahon, which he settled after paying a $400,000 fine and reimbursing $1.3 million to WWE.
Vince McMahon responded on 1/13 while WWE responded on 1/14, with each arguing against Grant's requests.
McMahon's filing noted that they had filed a motion to move the lawsuit to arbitration as far back as April 2024 but the Stay over the lawsuit ordered by the federal government meant there was no decision made by the court in that matter. They noted that Grant's side then proposed a schedule that would allow them to file an Amended complaint on 1/15. They are arguing that the schedule for Grant to respond to McMahon's push to move the complaint to arbitration has been in play and there is no need for a status conference, that the SEC filing about McMahon's financial charges (which he's settled) have no bearing on the civil lawsuit and that Grant's plan to file a new amended lawsuit would not impact the deadline to respond to McMahon's arbitration request.
WWE's Motion on 1/14 argues, "Although Grant’s motion is styled as a request for a status conference, it effectively is an improper and belated request" to extend the deadline of the arbitration argument. They argued Grant's request for an extension to respond due to the SEC charges announcement is "untimely" and that she has "not shown good cause" for an extension to be ordered.
The WWE filing also argued:
"...the recently announced SEC settlement with McMahon has no bearing whatsoever on Defendants’ motions to compel and does not warrant an extension of Grant’s time to oppose the motions. Grant makes the conclusory assertion that the consent order “necessitate[s] additional time for her counsel to assess these developments and incorporate these new (and still developing) facts into her Amended Complaint.” But it is unclear, and Grant does not explain, how the SEC’s cease-and-desist order against McMahon for violations of accounting- and disclosure-related offenses could have any bearing on the enforceability and scope of the arbitration provision that is the predicate for Defendants’ motions to compel. Grant’s reference to McMahon’s settlement with the SEC is a red herring and does not provide good cause for an extension of time to oppose Defendants’ motions."
WWE also argued that Grant's attorneys had eight months to prepare their response to the Motion regarding whether the case should be used to arbitration or not, citing "There is no conceivable hardship or prejudice to Grant in requiring that she adhere to the deadline set forth in the Local Rules, and Grant does not even attempt to explain how she could require even more time to respond to Defendants’ motions."
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
