WWE Files Response to Janel Grant’s Status Conference Request In Vince McMahon Lawsuit

WWE has joined Vince McMahon in filing a response opposing Janel Grant’s request for a status conference in her ongoing lawsuit against them. As reported on Tuesday, Grant’s team requested the status conference in a filing where they said they wanted “to inform the Court of the new status quo and request its guidance on how best to move this litigation forward” after the SEC announcement of McMahon’s settlement of charges made by the organization by paying a $400,000 fine and reimbursing $1.3 million to WWE. McMahon’s attorney then announced that day that they had filed a request opposing the request, with a statement sent to 411 and other outlets that read:

“The recent federal investigation resulted in no criminal indictments from the SDNY, while the SEC settlement relates to minor accounting issues at WWE that have nothing to do with this case. Any claims to the contrary made by Janel Grant’s team are just another desperate PR stunt.”

PWInsider reports that WWE also filed a motion on January 14th opposing Grant’s request, arguing that “Although Grant’s motion is styled as a request for a status conference, it effectively is an improper and belated request” to extend the deadline for their battle over whether the case should be moved to arbitration. WWE argued that Grant’s Grant’s request for an extension in order to respond due to the announcement of the SEC charges is “untimely” and that Grant’s team has “not shown good cause” for an extension.

The filing also noted:

“…the recently announced SEC settlement with McMahon has no bearing whatsoever on Defendants’ motions to compel and does not warrant an extension of Grant’s time to oppose the motions. Grant makes the conclusory assertion that the consent order “necessitate[s] additional time for her counsel to assess these developments and incorporate these new (and still developing) facts into her Amended Complaint.” But it is unclear, and Grant does not explain, how the SEC’s cease-and-desist order against McMahon for violations of accounting- and disclosure-related offenses could have any bearing on the enforceability and scope of the arbitration provision that is the predicate for Defendants’ motions to compel. Grant’s reference to McMahon’s settlement with the SEC is a red herring and does not provide good cause for an extension of time to oppose Defendants’ motions.”