Janel Grant has filed a new motion asking the court to strike a preliminary statement by Vince McMahon regarding the lawsuit she filed against him.
Earlier this week, McMahon filed a response to the lawsuit filed against himself, John Laurinaitis and WWE in January alleging that Grant was abused and sexually exploited by McMahon. In McMahon’s response, he accused Grant of violating a binding contract to arbitrate any issues with their NDA and asked that the suit be moved to arbitration.
McMahon also claims that Grant’s claims of “dealing with profound grief” over her parents’ passing and “struggling financially” when they met were false. He claims her father passed away in April of 2017 and that her mother had died before then.
In a new filing, Grant’s lawyers filed a motion to strike McMahon’s preliminary statement. The filing reads as follows,
“Even for Vince McMahon, the baseless, irrelevant, and false statements in the Motion’s “Preliminary Statement”—designed solely to harass and intimidate his longtime victim, Janel Grant are a new low. For instance, McMahon’s unsupported assertions that Janel was “absent in her” dying parents’ lives and engaged to a wealthy attorney when she met McMahon are not only falsehoods conceived by McMahon to intimidate Janel into submission—as he has done countless times before—but have nothing to do with the legal arguments raised by the Motion. McMahon’s lies are easily disproven. In truth, while Janel’s father was in in-home hospice care during his final days, Janel continued to provide him with around-the-clock care. At the same time, Janel had also cared for her blind, wheelchair bound mother until her death.
“Moreover, Janel was not dating, let alone engaged to, her ex-fiancé in 2019. To the contrary, Janel’s ex-fiancé generously allowed Janel to stay in his apartment as she rebuilt her life following her parents’ passing. During this time, Janel had no job or other financial support aside from the friendship and generosity of her ex. Consistent with his past behavior, McMahon twists these truths to fit his own fictional narrative, much like the fantasy world of professional wrestling from where he came.
“Yet even if McMahon’s falsities concerning Janel’s private life were true (they are not), these statements have no bearing on the merits of Janel’s claims, let alone the Motion. McMahon’s statements have no place in the Motion, which should be concerned solely with whether this dispute must be submitted to arbitration. It was not necessary, reasonable, or responsible to use a public filing to impugn Janel’s moral character. Indeed, McMahon’s desperate attempt to distract from the legal substance of the Motion highlight its weakness and the weakness of his overall case. This Court has inherent power to strike a party’s filings. The Court should use that power to strike the Motion’s “Preliminary Statement” in its entirety and admonish McMahon and his counsel that such statements have no place in civil litigation.”
McMahon’s PR team also sent us the following statement from Jessica Rosenberg of Kasowitz Benson Torres:
“Plaintiff had no right to bring this case in a public court but did so anyway. Now that she chose this public forum to falsely accuse Mr. McMahon, she wants to silence his ability to respond. She can’t have it both ways.”
Janel Grant Files Motion to Strike Vince McMahon’s Preliminary Statement in Lawsuit
Janel Grant, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Vince McMahon, has filed a new motion asking the court to strike a preliminary statement made by McMahon in response to her allegations. Grant had previously filed a lawsuit in January, accusing McMahon, John Laurinaitis, and WWE of abuse and sexual exploitation.
In his response to the lawsuit, McMahon claimed that Grant had violated a binding contract to arbitrate any issues related to their non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and requested that the suit be moved to arbitration. Additionally, McMahon disputed Grant’s claims of dealing with profound grief over her parents’ passing and struggling financially when they met.
However, Grant’s lawyers have now filed a motion to strike McMahon’s preliminary statement, calling it baseless, irrelevant, and false. They argue that McMahon’s statements are designed solely to harass and intimidate Grant. They claim that McMahon’s assertions about Grant being absent in her dying parents’ lives and engaged to a wealthy attorney when they met are not only falsehoods but also have no relevance to the legal arguments raised in the motion.
Grant’s lawyers provide evidence to counter McMahon’s claims, stating that she continued to provide around-the-clock care for her father during his final days while also caring for her blind, wheelchair-bound mother until her death. They also refute McMahon’s assertion that Grant was dating or engaged to her ex-fiancé in 2019, explaining that he generously allowed her to stay in his apartment as she rebuilt her life after her parents’ passing.
The motion argues that even if McMahon’s statements about Grant’s private life were true (which they claim they are not), they have no bearing on the merits of Grant’s claims or the motion itself. Grant’s lawyers assert that McMahon’s statements are an attempt to distract from the legal substance of the motion and should be struck from the record.
In response to Grant’s motion, McMahon’s PR team released a statement from Jessica Rosenberg of Kasowitz Benson Torres. Rosenberg argues that Grant had no right to bring the case to a public court but chose to do so anyway. She claims that Grant cannot silence McMahon’s ability to respond after making false accusations in a public forum.
It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant Grant’s motion and strike McMahon’s preliminary statement from the record. The outcome of this decision could have significant implications for the ongoing lawsuit between Grant and McMahon.