In the ongoing legal battle between Janel Grant and Vince McMahon, Grant has taken action to strike down McMahon’s initial statement in response to the lawsuit. McMahon, along with John Laurinaitis and WWE, faced allegations from Grant earlier this year, asserting abuse and sexual exploitation during her tenure at WWE. McMahon’s response countered, citing a breach of contract in Grant’s supposed violation of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), urging for arbitration and disputing Grant’s claims of familial loss and financial struggle.

According to Fightful‘s report, Grant’s legal team filed a motion to remove McMahon’s opening remarks, denouncing them as unsubstantiated, irrelevant, and aimed solely at intimidating her. McMahon’s alleged fabrications concerning Grant’s personal life, such as her relationship status and familial care, were refuted. Grant’s lawyers contended that McMahon’s diversionary tactics were irrelevant to the core legal issues and accused him of distorting facts akin to the scripted narratives of professional wrestling.

THE MOTION 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.

THE STATEMENT BY JANEL’S ATTORNEY

“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.”

VINCE MCMAHON’S LEGAL TEAM REACTION

Moreover, McMahon’s legal counsel, represented by Jessica Rosenberg of Kasowitz Benson Torres, issued a statement emphasizing Grant’s decision to pursue litigation in a public arena and the subsequent contradiction in seeking to suppress McMahon’s response.

Grant’s maneuver to eliminate McMahon’s introductory statements underscores the contention surrounding the lawsuit and the diverging narratives presented by both parties.

Pro wrestling news outlet, 411 received the following statement from Jessica Rosenberg of Kasowitz Benson Torres, counsel to McMahon, which reads:

“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.”