As noted, on February 21, Vince McMahon, WWE, and John Laurinaitis formally responded to Janel Grant’s amended lawsuit in the United States District Court of Connecticut, opposing her request to amend her complaint.
McMahon’s legal team filed a 23-page response, arguing that Grant’s proposed amendments should not be allowed due to an unjustified delay and lack of legal basis. His attorneys contended that Grant missed the deadline for amending her complaint by over 230 days and that her claims about the case timeline were misleading. They pointed out that the case was stayed for only six months—not the nearly one year Grant alleged—and that she could have filed her amendments when the stay was lifted in December 2024 but chose not to.
Further, McMahon’s team asserted that Grant deliberately withheld certain claims in her original filing to generate media attention and that her amendments fail to provide a legal argument against moving the case to arbitration. They also defended McMahon against claims of coercion regarding a nondisclosure agreement, stating that Grant accepted and retained $1 million from the settlement and never attempted to return it, thus validating the contract. They accused Grant of using the courts and media to promote a “false narrative” while ignoring contractual confidentiality obligations.
Laurinaitis submitted a two-page response aligning with McMahon’s position, supporting arbitration.
WWE’s ten-page filing argued that the SEC’s settlement with McMahon over financial misconduct has no relevance to the case, despite Grant’s legal team claiming otherwise. WWE also maintained that her allegations against Dr. Jeffrey Colker do not prevent arbitration and that new materials, such as phone screenshots, could have been submitted before the original deadline. They stated that Grant failed to demonstrate why the case should not proceed to arbitration, emphasizing that she provided no previously unavailable evidence to justify her amendments.
With all three defendants firmly opposing Grant’s amended complaint, the court will now determine whether her proposed changes will be accepted or if the case will proceed under the original complaint and potentially move to arbitration.
