Vince McMahon’s Legal Team Opposes Janel Grant’s Motion to Strike Statement From Record

Janel Grant’s lawsuit against WWE, Vince McMahon, and John Laurinaitis is ongoing. There is now a new update regarding the proceedings.

Attorneys for Vince McMahon have filed a new memorandum opposing Janel Grant’s motion to strike McMahon’s earlier statements, which aimed to discredit Grant. McMahon’s legal team contends that these statements provide “relevant context to the Motion to Compel Arbitration” and argues that Grant’s motion to strike is “meritless and the height of hypocrisy.”

McMahon asserts that Grant’s original complaint included “private sexual text messages from Defendant [McMahon] without including any of Plaintiff’s [Grant’s] responses to those texts.” He claims that Grant’s responses were “equally and often more aggressive and provocative” than his own communications.

Vince McMahon has submitted a memorandum opposing Plaintiff Janel Grant’s Motion to Strike, filed on April 24, 2024. McMahon’s legal team argues that Grant’s motion is without merit and hypocritical, claiming she falsely accused McMahon publicly despite an obligation to arbitrate, presenting an inflammatory 67-page complaint that ignores federal procedural rules.

McMahon’s attorneys assert that Grant’s motion seeks to strike the preliminary statement from McMahon’s memorandum in support of his Motion to Compel Arbitration, calling it “too inflammatory.” They argue that Grant has not shown that the court should use its inherent power to strike the statement, a power reserved for clear abuses of the judicial process.

They also argue that Grant’s reliance on Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows striking immaterial or scandalous allegations from pleadings, is misplaced. The preliminary statement is part of a memorandum of law, not a pleading, and even if Rule 12(f) applied, Grant has not demonstrated that the statement has no bearing on the case. The statement provides necessary context about the parties’ consensual relationship and the agreement’s circumstances.

McMahon’s attorneys claim that Grant deliberately omitted relevant text messages from her complaint to present a distorted picture. They allege these messages would show the relationship was consensual and that Grant often initiated provocative communications. They argue Grant’s motion to strike aims to prevent these facts from being public and should be denied.

According to McMahon, Grant likely still possesses all of these text messages but deliberately omitted them from her publicly filed complaint. He argues that this omission was intended to present a “distorted, false picture” of the interactions between them.