WWE, alongside Vince McMahon, has filed a response opposing Janel Grant’s request for a status conference in her ongoing lawsuit. As reported on Tuesday, Grant’s legal team sought the conference to update the court on the “new status quo” following the SEC’s announcement of McMahon’s $400,000 fine and $1.3 million reimbursement to WWE, and to seek guidance on moving the case forward. McMahon’s attorney later confirmed the opposition to the request, sharing a statement with 411 and other outlets.
“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 on January 14th, WWE filed a motion opposing Grant’s request, arguing that while styled as a request for a status conference, it is essentially an improper and delayed attempt to extend the deadline for deciding whether the case should go to arbitration. WWE contended that Grant’s request for an extension due to the SEC charges announcement is “untimely” and that Grant’s team has failed to show “good cause” for the extension.
The filing also stated:
“…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.”
