A filing on behalf of Vince McMahon seeks to oppose the amended complaint by Janel Grant’s legal team.
On Friday, McMahon’s lawyer Jessica Rosenberg filed a motion to strike down the updated complaint by Grant, which was recently filed and contained additional allegations and identities of previously anonymous figures.
The 101-page amended complaint included the naming of Brock Lesnar as the ‘WWE Superstar’ to whom Grant alleges McMahon attempted to traffic her. It also revealed Nick Khan, Brad Blum, and Brian Nurse as three of the corporate officers with Stephanie McMahon previously confirmed as another corporate officer and Dr. Carlon Colker identified as the ‘Celebrity Doctor’.
Allegations in the amended complaint included McMahon sending sexually explicit content of Grant to producer Michael Hayes, and text of a voicemail from McMahon urging Grant to sign her nondisclosure agreement before an audit hearing in January 2022 to convey how she was pressured.
Rosenberg calls the amended complaint “untimely” and being done “in bad faith”. She accuses the plaintiffs of missing deadlines to respond to past motions to move the case to arbitration, which is the central argument that Judge Sarah F. Russell will determine regarding where this case is assigned.
Rosenberg is accusing Grant’s team of purposely omitting facts from the original complaint and including them in the amended version “to create another press cycle”. The motion cites a press call that Ann Callis conducted last year where she noted the hiring of the SKDK public relations firm to create “more firepower” in its messaging.
Plaintiff disingenuously claims that “key factual developments” prompted her proposed amendments and constitute good cause to amend. Yet, most of Plaintiff’s proposed amendments comprise years-old allegations purportedly derived from Plaintiff’s devices, records, or recollection (whether real or imagined). These “new” allegations were always known (or conjured) by Plaintiff but were intentionally omitted from the original complaint. The same is true of Plaintiff’s otherwise unjustified decision to deanonymize the names of various high-profile individuals. Plaintiff fails to identify—nor could she—even a single reason for this delay.
McMahon’s team refutes the notion of coercing Grant into signing the NDA with the defense that she accepted the first payment of $1 million and has never attempted to return it.
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
Hours after the motion was filed, John Laurinaitis filed his objection to the amended complaint and joined McMahon.
Laurinaitis and WWE are both defendants in the case along with McMahon. Laurinaitis is being represented by Edward Brennan.
WWE’s legal counsel followed and with its own suit opposing Grant’s amended complaint as all the defendants agree in their attempts to prevent the amended version.
