Attorneys for Vince McMahon filed an Opposition to Janel Grant’ Motion to Strike portions of his Preliminary Statement which was part of his Motion to Compel Arbitration.
The legal crux of the argument is that Rule 12(f) which allows for a court to utilize its “inherent authority” to strike portions of a pleading.
McMahon had laced his Preliminary Statement with some inflammatory information about Grant which brought about the Motion to Strike.
In the Opposition, McMahon argues that the Court does not have the “inherent power” in this instance to impose sanctions because utilizing those powers must be reserved for egregious abuses. Secondly, McMahon argues that the statements made are relevant to the case. Specifically, Grant points to the her grieving for her parents and highlighting the fact that their home was foreclosed on and they argue she did not want anything to do with it.
McMahon also argues that the Preliminary Statement provides “necessary background and context” to their relationship.
In this Opposition, McMahon also highlights texts that he has received and states that Grant sent her explicit images.
McMahon also cleans up a little mess in their Opposition. There was an inference that Grant should have been “over” her parents’ death. But, the footnotes states that it was not suggesting a “deadline” for grieving.
Grant will have an opportunity to file a Reply to this Opposition and then the Court will make a ruling. While I don’t believe the information is vital to McMahon’s case, he is going to fight this case tooth and nail and any way to exact embarrassment through this process will likely happen.
Leave a Reply