Vince McMahon’s attorney filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Janel Grant case. Denying the allegations in the salacious complaint, McMahon’s attorneys relied on the Nondisclosure Agreement signed by Grant.
McMahon’s central argument is that Grant is bound by the terms of the Agreement she signed it in exchange for a payout totaling $3 million. Grant argued that McMahon breached the Agreement and would not be bound by the contract. This, among other arguments, would save Grant from having to prove her case in Arbitration. However, McMahon believes that her arguments will fall short as exemplified in this footnote.
McMahon argues that even if there was a purported breach it should be decided by an Arbitrator. He also stressed the fact that Grant represented that she had a law degree although had not taken a bar exam and also hired a lawyer to negotiate the terms. This would show that Grant knowingly entered into an Agreement which had a clause that any dispute would be decided in arbitration.
The Preliminary Statement in the Motion goes after Grant accusing her that she was not a caregiver for her ailing father as described in the lawsuit. Rather, McMahon brings up a foreclosure action on her parents’ home noting that she had yet to meet McMahon when her father passed. Also, it brings up her then fiancee at the time who she lived with. It notes that Grant had an affair with McMahon in the same building that he lived and at time she would go see McMahon and then go back to her home with her fiancee (Ouch). McMahon also points to a love-letter written by Grant to McMahon prior to their breakup. The NY Post reported about this but she argues she was coerced into doing this.
Grant’s attorneys will have a chance to respond to the Motion to Compel. In these instances, the overarching policy is that an arbitration provision will prevail. However, there is still the argument by Grant that there was a breach of the contract and even though McMahon paid some of the money outlined in the Agreement, he did not pay all of it. Thus, there is an opening that Grant’s attorneys can argue.
MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply