The legal team of Vince McMahon has submitted a counterstatement in response to the motion put forward by Janel Grant to dismiss his initial declaration in the ongoing court action against him.
The case put forward by Grant accuses McMahon, alongside John Laurinaitis and WWE, of sexual exploitation and abuse during her tenure with WWE.
In their dismissal motion, lawyers for Grant argued that McMahon’s initial declaration was filled with baseless, untrue, and unnecessary allegations meant purely for intimidation and harassment.
However, the lawyers for McMahon have now opposed this dismissal motion and provided a counterstatement.
The memorandum can be read below:
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is meritless and the height of hypocrisy. Having falsely accused Defendant in a public forum, despite an obligation to arbitrate, in an inflammatory 67- page Complaint that completely disregards the mandate of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff now seeks to strike the Preliminary Statement of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. No. 30-1) on the purported basis that it is too inflammatory.”
The memorandum further reveals that Plaintiff allegedly violated an agreement to keep the nature of their disputes private by beginning this litigation. It states that the Complaint unnecessarily included private sexual text messages from the Defendant but didn’t include any of her corresponding responses, which it alleges were equally, if not more aggressive and provocative.
The memorandum goes on to list several messages that Grant allegedly sent to McMahon. Including expressing love and appreciation, desire for physical intimacy, fantasies about rough sex and desiring financial support for clothing and surgeries amongst others.
The memorandum concludes by accusing the plaintiff of presenting a misleading and dishonest picture by omitting her own conduct and now taking an issue with the so-called ‘mudslinging’ and ‘falsehoods made about her moral character’ in McMahon’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. It states that the plaintiff cannot have the situation both ways and the Motion should be denied for these and other reasons given.