Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Janel Grant responded today to efforts by Vince McMahon, WWE, and John Laurinaitis to move her Amended Lawsuit to arbitration, filing her response before the United States District Court of Connecticut.
Grant's attorneys stated, "It is unsurprising that Defendants wish to avoid confronting the uncomfortable truths Ms. Grant raises in her Complaint. However, nothing Defendants raise in their Objections overcomes the liberal presumption in Plaintiff’s favor here. Leave to amend should be granted."
In their argument that the Amended Complaint should remain before the Court and move forward rather than be dismissed, Grant's attorneys asserted:
"Following an extended stay of this action at the request of federal law enforcement, Plaintiff has moved to amend her pleading to describe with greater particularity the horrific sexual, physical, and emotional abuse she experienced at the hands of Defendants. She further details the predatory and dangerously coercive environment within WWE and its support system, which rewarded enablers at all levels of the organization who turned a blind eye to Defendants’ exploitation.
She also seeks to inform the Court of material factual developments that occurred during the stay—including, among other things, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s finding that McMahon engaged in a scheme to cover up his misdeeds and mislead shareholders, with the NDA at issue here being central to that scheme. These are all valid reasons for Plaintiff to amend her pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the resumption of this case is an appropriate time to do so.
Defendants are not entitled to arbitrarily censor the complaint and suppress damaging facts. Defendants McMahon and WWE object to Plaintiff’s phrasing and claim the Amended Complaint is prejudicial because their own bad acts have come to ligh. However, Defendants’ complaints are not legally cognizable objections that should prevent the Court from considering an Amended Complaint, which clarifies key issues and updates the facts following the lengthy stay—one Plaintiff did not initiate.
Defendants attempt to downplay the permissive standard for leave to amend. They are well aware that such leave is to be freely granted, and Ms. Grant has demonstrated good cause. Her Amended Complaint incorporates key factual developments unavailable when she filed her initial complaint, sheds further light on the illegal and coercive non-disclosure agreement Defendants seek to enforce to keep her out of court, and pleads her claims with greater specificity. Plaintiff has shown good cause, her motion was brought without undue delay, and her proposed amendments are proper. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant her motion for leave to file her First Amended Complaint."
Grant's attorneys also challenge Vince McMahon's claims that he has been "prejudiced" by the amended complaint. McMahon argues that Ms. Grant has “exploited the courts and the media to publicize a false narrative and information contractually required to remain confidential” under an illegal contract. However, Grant's legal team asserts that McMahon’s argument does not hold up to scrutiny, stating:
"McMahon’s stale examples are telling: any reputational harm McMahon claims is no greater now than when Plaintiff filed her initial complaint."
In response to arguments that the Amended Complaint was filed too late, Grant's attorneys state, "Plaintiff’s amendments are timely in the context of this litigation. Defendant McMahon dismisses the federal government’s stay while it investigated his criminal conduct as an ‘inexplicable’ delay—an investigation he certainly knew about, as a target. Defendants also attempt to obscure the timeline, but the facts are clear: the federal government approached the parties regarding a proposed stay before making a formal request, which was entered in June 2024. As Ms. Grant noted in her motions for a status conference, the language of the Stay Order and subsequent orders created uncertainty about whether the lift of the stay was self-executing. Counsel for Ms. Grant reached out to Defendants’ counsel and proposed a joint briefing schedule, but Defendants flatly refused to cooperate. Plaintiff then sought guidance from Judge Meyer on deadlines, but he sadly passed away before ruling on the pending motions. It is disappointing that Defendants would attempt to seize upon the sudden and tragic loss of Judge Meyer for a litigation advantage."
Grant's attorneys argue that their proposed amendments are "proper and offered for the purpose of informing this Court." Now that the Department of Justice has lifted the stay on the lawsuit, "Plaintiff is comfortable providing a fuller picture of the case, including identifying abusers and enablers who facilitated her exploitation, along with additional details surrounding her abuse."
Regarding Vince McMahon’s settlement with the SEC, Grant’s attorneys argue, "A criminal investigation implicating the facts underlying this case and an order addressing its resolution are undeniably relevant to this Court. Furthermore, the object of the agreements cited in the SEC Order was to conceal human trafficking. The SEC Order provides evidence that McMahon sought to silence multiple women, not just Plaintiff, in his scheme to conceal his predatory behaviors and avoid accountability from the Company’s board, potential merger partners, future shareholders, and the public. These facts are material to this Court’s assessment of whether the illegal NDA agreement can be enforced. Defendants hope to obscure these facts or at least avoid addressing them while operating under the Amended Complaint, all while invoking the arbitration clause contained in that illegal agreement as both a sword and shield in this case."
In response to Defendants' argument that allegations against Dr. Colker and Peak Wellness are not germane to the lawsuit, Grant’s attorneys countered, "This doctor was paid by Ms. Grant’s abuser, was aware of her relationship with Defendant McMahon, and administered unknown treatments to her during the relevant time period. Now, he is withholding her medical records, which document those treatments and Defendant McMahon’s involvement. This Court deserves the benefit of up-to-date facts regarding the role this doctor played in McMahon’s pattern of coercion and control."
The Defendants will have an opportunity to reply before the Court decides whether the case will proceed in court or be shifted to private arbitration.
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
