Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Vince McMahon, WWE and John Lauirinaitis responded on Friday 2/21 to Janel Grant's Amended Lawsut before The United States District Court of Connecticut.
McMahon filed a 23 page response, arguing that Grant's amended complaint should not be allowing, citing, "Plaintiff has failed to exercise the requisite diligence to justify her delay or to warrant a departure from this Court’s scheduling order, the Motion is made in bad faith, and her proposed amendments would be futile—all of which are standalone bases to deny leave to amend. The inevitable delay any such amendment would cause prejudices Defendant McMahon by further postponing the resolution of his motion that seeks to have this dispute adjudicated in the agreed upon forum."
McMahon's attorneys also argued:
"Plaintiff’s Motion offers no explanation for her delay in filing a Proposed Amended Complaint more than a year into this case. Instead, throughout her Motion, Plaintiff misrepresents to the Court the history of this case, as well as her own words and actions. The Court’s Order on Pretrial Deadlines stated that all amendments of the pleadings “shall be filed within . . . (i) 35 days after the appearance of the last defendant.” (Dkt. # 7.) That deadline was June 11, 2024, and Plaintiff did not amend by that date. (See Dkt. #46 (noting appearance of last Defendant on May 7, 2024).) Instead, Plaintiff now attempts to amend more than 230 days beyond her allotted 35 days. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motion inaccurately represents that her case “was stayed shortly after its inception” (it was stayed four-and-a-half months after its inception), and that it “has been on hold for almost a year” (it was on hold for six months). Plaintiff fails to provide a reason why she neglected to move to amend her Complaint when the stay was lifted in early December 2024. Despite her representations to the contrary, Plaintiff knew the stay was lifted on December 11, 2024, and that she could have filed at that time. Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel previously made two statements that the stay in this case had ended in December, acknowledging that the case would proceed:
On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel issued a press release heralding the end of the stay: “For the last six months, Ms. Grant has patiently waited to hold [Defendants] accountable” and “[h]er wait is over, and we now look forward to sharing Ms. Grant’s story.”
Five days later on December 16, 2024 (in an email that Plaintiff’s counsel later filed on this Court’s docket), Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel acknowledging that Defendants were now on the clock to refile their motions to compel arbitration by Christmas Day (which they did), given that the stay had ended.(“Under the Court’s current orders, Defendants may refile their motions to compel arbitration on Christmas Day.”).
Now, in a transparent attempt to conceal her unwarranted delay, Plaintiff disingenuously claims that “[t]he Court formally lifted [the] stay on January 16, 2025.” That representation distorts the Court’s January 16, 2025 order denying Plaintiff’s motions for a status conference, and stating that the stay “is no longer in effect.” Plaintiff’s misrepresentations are not mistakes; they are an intentional effort to persuade this Court against finding that Plaintiff could have moved to file an amended complaint (i) in the first four-plus months of this litigation before the government stayed the case, or (ii) as early as December 11, 2024, when the stay ended. It is undisputed that she failed to move to amend before the Court’s deadline, within the first four-plus months that the case was pending, or even during the 50-plus days that she has now waited since the stay ended. Given that Plaintiff had “longstanding knowledge” of the relevant allegations (as described more fully in Section I.B, infra), and provides no other reason for her failure to act with diligence and file sooner, Plaintiff has not met her burden to justify the delay."
McMahon's attorneys also claimed that new amendments to the lawsuit are items that were purposely withheld the first time and were added to create additional press interest in the case, that Grant "fails to cite even a single source of legal authority for why such an amendment should be permitted" and that she has done nothing to show why the case should not be moved to arbitration. They also pushed back on the idea McMahon forced Grant to sign the NDA, citing:
"Plaintiff accepted and retained $1 million under the Settlement Agreement. She has not attempted to return that $1 million payment to Defendant McMahon. In doing so, she ratified the contract and “lost” “the power to avoid” the Settlement Agreement for “duress [and/or] undue influence.
Rather than comply with the clear terms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff has repeatedly exploited the courts and the media to publicize a false narrative and information contractually required to remain confidential. Permitting additional time to pass unduly prejudices Defendant McMahon and his ability to vindicate himself."
John Laurinaitis filed a two page response agreeing with McMahon's opposition and agreeing the case should be moved to arbitration.
WWE filed a ten page response, arguing that the SEC Settlement with Vince McMahon over his financial charges has "no bearing" on the case despite Grant's attorneys arguing such, that her allegations against Dr. Colker are not relevant to the case being prevented from going to arbitration and that Grant's latest complaint fails to prove the request to move the case to arbitration isn't valid. They are also arguing that any new material included in the Amended Complaint (such as screenshots from Grant's phone) could have been previously included. They argued, "Grant does not, because she cannot, point to a single piece of information supposedly constituting “greater particularity” that she could not have included in an amended complaint before the Court-ordered deadline expired."
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
