This article was also published for Wrestlenomics subscribers. Signup now on
Patreon
or Substack
to unlock access to paywalled and ad-free reporting and analysis on the business of pro wrestling.
Vince McMahon is pushing back against efforts to force him to turn over more documents in a shareholder lawsuit over the TKO merger, arguing that the plaintiffs are overreaching and trying to use the case to pry into his personal life.
In a filing with the Delaware Court of Chancery made public Thursday, McMahon’s attorneys asked the court to deny the plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery. The plaintiffs, including a pension fund that owned WWE stock, argue that McMahon predetermined UFC’s then-parent Endeavor as a merger partner to protect his own power at the expense of WWE shareholders. The plaintiffs allege McMahon favored a buyer that would tolerate the sexual misconduct allegations against him.
The lawsuit is filed against McMahon and other directors of the WWE board at the time. WWE itself isn’t a party to the lawsuit.
McMahon’s lawyers stated that theory is “meritless” and that he’s already agreed to produce all documents that connect the sexual misconduct allegations to the merger process.
But the former WWE Chairman and CEO is drawing the line at turning over what he calls “deeply personal and intimate communications” with women he had relationships with, and messages with family members about those relationships.
According to the filing, McMahon’s legal representatives say those materials are irrelevant to the case, which they argue is about fiduciary duty—whether shareholders got a fair deal in the 2023 merger that put WWE and UFC together to form TKO Group Holdings.
McMahon’s attorneys say the plaintiffs are using discovery as a way to “harass and pressure McMahon and his family” and re-litigate issues already addressed in a separate derivative lawsuit that was dismissed with prejudice before this class action was filed.
In simple terms, the two sides are litigating over how far discovery should reach. The plaintiffs want McMahon to turn over documents related to the misconduct allegations, even if they don’t explicitly mention the merger. They say those records might show what motivated him to retake control of WWE and push a deal with Endeavor. McMahon says that goes too far; he’s willing to turn over communications records about misconduct only if they also relate to the merger, but not personal messages that apparently have nothing to do with business decisions.
“Litigation should not be used for this purpose,” McMahon’s attorneys added.
McMahon says he’s already offering several concessions. He says he’s willing to provide documents that mention both the sexual misconduct topics and the merger or potential alternatives. That includes communications with key decision-makers at WWE, Endeavor, or TKO, including current WWE President Nick Khan, current WWE Chief Content Officer and McMahon’s son-in-law Paul Levesque, and former WWE board members George Barrios, Michelle Wilson, Steve Koonin, Michelle McKenna, Steve Pamon, and Frank Riddick. He also agreed to produce non-disclosure agreements from before the merger, along with final board meeting minutes and resolutions from the Special and Demand Committees that reviewed the allegations.
What he opposes producing are private conversations that he says are unrelated to the deal process, particularly those with individuals not involved in merger negotiations.
The plaintiffs say McMahon is leaving out a key group of people: board members who left or were removed before the merger process began. Some resigned upon his return; others were removed to make room for himself, Barrios, and Wilson. Communications with those pre-merger board members, they say, could reveal why the board changed—and what McMahon wanted from the deal.
Notably, McMahon’s daughter Stephanie McMahon served as co-CEO and Chairwoman until she resigned from all roles with the company in January 2023, just as McMahon was forcing his way back into the company to begin exploring a sale or merger.
Ignace Lahoud told the LA Times in 2023 that he left the WWE board because McMahon’s return “wasn’t aligned with my way of seeing what governance is.”
McMahon’s legal team states that the plaintiffs already pursued a related theory in the earlier legal action, which was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the claims of that suit can’t be brought again by the same plaintiffs.
McMahon argues that allowing this discovery would effectively allow plaintiffs to rehash claims from that case, dragging the focus away from the financial fairness of the merger and toward sensational allegations from the past.
The plaintiffs, however, previously argued that documents about how the misconduct allegations affected McMahon’s thinking are relevant because they may explain why he returned to WWE in early 2023 and directed the merger process toward Endeavor, led by his longtime associate Ari Emanuel.
McMahon disagrees, arguing that the misconduct allegations were already public at the time and known to prospective buyers, including Endeavor, and that the plaintiffs already have access to that timeline from public records. He says he’s agreed to turn over communications that speak to his motivation, including those discussing his potential role in the post-merger company.
As part of the TKO merger, McMahon became Executive Chairman of the TKO board. However, he resigned after a sex trafficking lawsuit was brought by former employee Janel Grant against him, WWE, and former executive John Laurinaitis.
McMahon says broader discovery would turn the case into a sideshow.
“If this Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion,” his attorneys wrote, “this case will devolve into a mini-trial over the Sexual Misconduct Allegations.”
The case is being overseen by Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, who hasn’t made a decision on this issue yet.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He operates and owns Wrestlenomics.
This article was also published for Wrestlenomics subscribers. Signup now on
Patreon
or Substack
to unlock access to paywalled and ad-free reporting and analysis on the business of pro wrestling.
Before Grant’s allegations themselves can be litigated in open court, the judge must first decide whether the case will stay in federal court—as Grant wants—or if it will move to private arbitration, as all three defendants want. Moving the case to arbitration relies on a clause in the $3 million nondisclosure agreement that Grant and McMahon signed on January 28, 2022, which ostensibly requires all related disputes to be handled through binding arbitration—a private process conducted outside the public court system, often mediated by a retired judge.
While arbitration relieves courts from having to take on more cases, critics argue arbitration tends to favor powerful parties by limiting the ability to gather evidence, shielding the litigation from public view, and making it difficult to appeal.
There are a variety of issues the judge will likely consider when assessing whether to approve or deny the defendants motions to compel arbitration. Rather than trying to account for all of them, we’ll consider here one recent case, Olivieri v. Stifel, which may be relevant to Grant’s allegations.
The defendants are due to re-file their motions to compel arbitration by June 13. Grant will have an opportunity to request evidence related to the arbitration question and to submit a written opposition to the motions.
In the event of any dispute arising under or out of this Agreement, its construction, interpretation, application, performance or breach, the parties agree to first attempt to resolve such disputes informally and prior to taking any formal legal action to resolve such disputes. In the event any such dispute cannot be resolved informally, all parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive legal method to resolve any and all disputes and/or controversies is to commence binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act pursuant to the procedures of the American Arbitration Association and to do so by sealed proceedings which preserve the confidential and private nature of this Agreement. The parties agree to discuss the venue for any such arbitration proceeding if and when such a dispute arises which cannot be informally resolved; but in the event the parties cannot agree on a venue then the exclusive venue for any arbitration proceeding shall be in Stamford, Connecticut. The prevailing party, as determined by the arbitration tribunal, shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all of its attorney’s fees and costs. (3:24-cv-00090-SFR, ECF No. 85-3, Section X at 5)
Grant has raised public policies, like the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which she argues are in her favor. The TVPA established serious consequences for perpetrators of trafficking and those who knowingly benefited from trafficking. But it doesn’t mention arbitration.
The Speak Out Act, passed on December 7, 2022—almost a year after the contract here was signed—limits the enforceability of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that would prevent a person from publicly discussing sexual assault or harassment.
The law isn’t retroactive, though, stating:
“This Act shall apply with respect to a claim that is filed under Federal, State, or Tribal law on or after the date of enactment of this Act” (Public Law No. 117-224, § 5).
That aside, the act says nothing about arbitration.
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) is likely the only federal law that directly concerns arbitration in sexual misconduct cases. The act took effect on March 3, 2022—mere weeks after Grant’s NDA was finalized—and allows plaintiffs to choose to go to open court, even if they signed a contract with a mandatory arbitration clause.
But the EFAA isn’t retroactive either. The statute ends with a sentence similar to what’s in Speak Out.
“This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after the date of enactment of this Act” (Public Law No. 117-90, § 3).
While the lawsuit describes several events that took place around the EFAA’s effective date, neither Grant’s complaint nor any other of her filings to date reference the law. However, she alleges the following.
On March 2, 2022, while Ms. Grant was away on a trip to Florida, McMahon called Ms. Grant to advised [sic] that it would probably be the last time she would hear from him and, if she needed anything, to contact Nick Khan or Brad Blum. Over the course of an approximately half hour call, McMahon lamented both his inability to focus on the upcoming WrestleMania and how his personal life had blown up over the past few weeks. Towards the end of their conversation, McMahon and Ms. Grant agreed to resume contact after WrestleMania. He also instructed Ms. Grant to continue having sexual relations with other men, including Brock Lesnar, in the meantime (3:24-cv-00090-SFR, ECF No. 117, ¶ 268, at 66).
Still, March 2 is literally the day before the EFAA was enacted. Then, in the next paragraph, with the EFAA having just been enacted on March 3, 2022, she claims:
On or around March 4, 2022, Lesnar messaged Ms. Grant that he was in New York. In line with McMahon’s orders, Ms. Grant texted Lesnar explicit pictures (ECF No. 117, ¶ 269, at 66).
On March 27, 2022, Lesnar reached out to Ms. Grant again. Ms. Grant understood that these back-to-back advances were an indication of McMahon’s continued control (ECF No. 117, ¶ 270, at 66).
WWE and McMahon have already anticipated this exact issue related to the EFAA in their earlier motions to compel arbitration even though Grant hasn’t raised the law to this point.
The defendants raise two main points.
Accrual: They say all of Grant’s claims accrued (became legally viable) before March 3, 2022, so the EFAA doesn’t apply.
Predispute agreement: They argue that the Grant-McMahon contract was a postdispute agreement. The EFAA covers only predispute agreements, not postdispute agreements.
WWE and McMahon both cite case law that says a claim accrues at the moment the alleged misconduct happens, thus giving a person a right to file a lawsuit.
To point (1), WWE’s attorneys argue that the events post-March 3, 2022, are after Grant is no longer employed with WWE, so they can’t apply to the company, and besides, those allegations “could not be severed and litigated separately from the pre-March 3, 2022 claims that unquestionably are outside the purview of the EFAA” (ECF No. 86-1, at 25).
On the issue of Grant’s alleged interactions with Brock Lesnar in March, McMahon’s attorneys stated: “The sparse allegations in the Complaint that postdate March 3, 2022, allege no actionable misconduct, and therefore do not alter the analysis” (ECF No. 85-1, at 30).
On point (2), WWE contends that because Grant was no longer employed at WWE by the time of the Lesnar texts, that WWE is free from the effects of the EFAA. Even if she was still employed at that time, WWE argues, “claims related to these post-Agreement allegations could not practically be litigated separately from, and in parallel with, the pre-Agreement claims that are subject to arbitration” (ECF No. 86-1, at 25), though WWE does not seem to have persuasive authority, let alone binding authority, to support that assertion.
McMahon aims to establish the second point, citing the text of the EFAA itself.
“The EFAA can invalidate only a ‘predispute arbitration agreement,’ defined by the EFAA as ‘any agreement to arbitrate a dispute that had not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement’” (ECF No. 85-1, at 30).
Neither WWE nor McMahon mentioned the alleged leaking of Grant’s name to the public in their earlier motions.
With the EFAA being a relatively new law, there may not be much precedent to establish how the act is interpreted. Both WWE and McMahon cite persuasive authority—cases from other U.S. District Courts—but they don’t cite more crucial binding authority, that is, case law from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Grant v. WWE is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (highlighted in yellow), which falls under the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Because Olivieri v. Stifel was decided by the Second Circuit, it provides binding precedent for the Grant case.
Patricia Olivieri sued her employer, Stifel, and manager for sexual assault, harassment, and retaliation. Like Grant, she had signed an agreement requiring arbitration, though it was a pre-employment agreement. But like Grant, much of the alleged misconduct happened before March 3, 2022.
In fact, Olivieri’s case was sent to arbitration by a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York just weeks after the EFAA was enacted. Seemingly no party mentioned the new law. A few months later, Olivieri began the process to amend her complaint and cite the EFAA as the reason why she shouldn’t be forced into arbitration, arguing that she was still being retaliated against after March 3, 2022.
The lower court judge reversed her earlier ruling, finding that Olivieri’s claims accrued after March 3, and therefore, the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the EFAA—despite the defendants’ effort to compel arbitration.
Unsurprisingly, the defendants appealed, continuing to argue that the plaintiffs claims post-EFAA accrued before the EFAA’s effective date.
Nonetheless, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision.
[T]he continuing course of conduct that underlies [Olivieri’s] retaliatory hostile environment claim persisted after the EFAA was enacted. Her claim thus accrued after the Effective Date, the EFAA applies in this case, and she was permitted to invalidate her arbitration agreement (23-658-cv, ECF 65-1, at 5).
The court applied the “continuing violation” doctrine, which allows a court to treat a series of related actions as one extended episode, as long as at least one part occurred during the law’s effective period.
The Second Circuit reasoned in Olivieri that if even part of the alleged misconduct accrued after March 3, 2022, and forms part of a single, continuing episode, the EFAA could bar enforcement of the arbitration clause.
Pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine, the statute of limitations for hostile work environment claims runs from the time of the last act in the continuing course of discriminatory or retaliatory conduct. (23-658-cv, ECF 65-1, at 5)
As discussed above, Grant describes text messages with Lesnar on March 4 and March 27, 2022. She alleges those events stemmed from McMahon’s previous instructions and continued influence.
Although McMahon’s attorneys characterize those allegations as “sparse” and not actionable, the court may assess whether they plausibly allege that coercion or retaliatory conduct tied to the broader sexual misconduct dispute continued beyond the EFAA’s effective date.
Also possibly relevant, Grant alleges retaliation continued after March. She says her identity was publicly leaked by someone within WWE to media member Brad Shepard on June 17, 2022, two days after the allegations against McMahon became public for the first time. Grant describes that as an “overt intimidation tactic” by WWE (ECF No. 117, ¶ 29 at 7). She connects this leak to McMahon’s prior promise of confidentiality and suggests it was intended to silence or retaliate against her.
If the court accepts that theory, the claim could fall within the EFAA’s scope as well, since Olivieri emphasized that post-March 3 retaliation tied to a sexual harassment or assault dispute can bring the entire case under the statute’s protection.
The user account Shepard used to post Grant’s name has since been suspended, but the tweet can still be found on the Internet Archive.
WWE and McMahon, however, may argue that Olivieri is different in important ways. In Olivieri, the plaintiff signed a pre-employment arbitration agreement, the exact category of “predispute arbitration agreement” the EFAA was designed to target. Grant, on the other hand, signed her agreement on January 28, 2022, as part of a post-employment settlement, which the defendants assert was intended to resolve an existing dispute, not anticipate a future one like in Olivieri. The defendants may cite the law’s definition of a “predispute arbitration agreement,” which covers only agreements made before a dispute has arisen, and contend that this doesn’t apply when the parties are settling known claims, like in the case of Grant, McMahon, and WWE.
Because Grant alleges some misconduct occurred after signing—including both McMahon’s final alleged assault (still pre-EFAA), supposed Lesnar texts and the alleged publicizing of her name (post-EFAA)—the arbitration clause might be interpreted as predispute for those events, if it was ever intended to cover future claims at all.
The defendants might also say that any conduct that occurred after March 3, 2022, doesn’t constitute actionable conduct, which would question Grant’s claim to harm with regard to her interactions that month with Lesnar, even if accepted as true.
As to these defendants, Lesnar is not even a party to this lawsuit, after all. And here WWE may again point out that Grant, who says she gave the company notice in February, was no longer employed there by the time of the March interactions with Lesnar.
McMahon wasn’t directly involved in any of those events, they may contend, and therefore those aren’t allegations against him.
But Grant would likely allege that the Lesnar texts post-EFAA were the result of McMahon’s continued sex trafficking of her. She could further contend the trafficking was part of a continuing pattern of conduct, potentially connected to McMahon’s relationship with Lesnar, as part of a contract negotiation or an exchange related to Lesnar’s services to WWE. Those allegations, if accepted, could implicate both the company and McMahon.
Further, Grant characterizes the later disclosure of her name as an act of intimidation, which she attributes to WWE, though she makes this claim based only on information and belief. At the time, Grant was not a public figure. Other reporters who may have known her identity likely withheld it, recognizing her as a potential victim of misconduct. WWE and McMahon may deny any involvement in publicizing her name. Shepard himself attributed the information to “a source in #WWE”, which connects the source to the company, though, not necessarily to someone acting on its behalf, such as an officer of the company or member of the media relations department.
Even if the court accepts that some post-March 3 conduct is relevant under the EFAA, the defendants might still argue that even if the EFAA potentially invalidates the arbitration clause, the question of whether this case should be in arbitration or not has already been delegated in the text of the clause to the arbitrator, not the judge. They could lean on theRent-A-Center v. Jackson Supreme Court case, as they have in other arguments, which gives arbitrators the authority to decide such “threshold” or “gateway” issues. Allowing this, though, would seem to defeat the EFAA’s purpose, which was specifically to invalidate predispute arbitration clauses.
However Judge Sarah F. Russell may interpret these issues, the Olivieri decision affirmed the notion that claims can accrue on the date alleged misconduct or retaliation occurs, such as the interactions with Lesnar that she says were part of McMahon’s trafficking of her or WWE’s alleged retaliation against her in purportedly publicizing her name.
If Grant’s allegations are construed by Russell as part of an ongoing pattern of coercion or retaliation—one that includes events after March 3, as Grant seems to be alleging—then the court may find that the EFAA applies, even though her arbitration clause was part of a post-employment agreement.
But if the court finds the post-March 3 events too isolated, speculative, or unrelated to the original dispute, it could still enforce the arbitration clause.
Note: I’m not a lawyer. This article is only a journalistic analysis, and not an authoritative legal opinion and it’s definitely not legal advice. I relied on legal definitions from universities and relevant case law from the courts via public resources like CourtListener, Justia, and Google Scholar. To remove any doubt: while I routinely contact representatives of the parties in Grant v. WWE to request comments when reporting factual news stories, I did not discuss the legal analysis explored in this article with any party, representative, or person with a direct interest in this case before publishing this. I’m definitely not an attorney but if you are (or if you’re not and you just have thoughtful comments), I’d be glad to hear from you.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He operates and owns Wrestlenomics.
Janel Grant filed a reply brief on Friday, pushing back against arguments by defendants Vince McMahon, WWE, and John Laurinaitis to block her amended complaint, which adds to her allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking which the defendants deny.
The latest filing from Grant, who was a WWE employee at the time of the alleged abuse, argues that the federal district court in Connecticut should allow the expanded version of her lawsuit to be the one litigated. Developments that have emerged since her original filing in January 2024, should be considered, she says. That includes the Securities and Exchange Commission’s findings that McMahon engaged in — what Grant characterizes as — a scheme to conceal misconduct.
McMahon and WWE each filed on February 21 their oppositions to Grant’s motion to amend her complaint. Filings from Laurinaitis indicate he’s in agreement with McMahon. The defendants argued that Grant is misusing the court to generate publicity. In Friday’s filing, Grant rejected their claims, asserting that she initially withheld certain details — including the names of high-ranking WWE executives, including company President Nick Khan, who she alleges enabled McMahon — out of concern for an active criminal investigation into McMahon by the federal prosecutors. Executives other than McMahon and Laurinaitis are not alleged to have directly participated in abuse. Now that the stay that was imposed from June to December 2024 has ended, Grant’s attorneys say she is entitled to present a fuller picture of the alleged abuse, including identifying individuals who she says facilitated it.
“While certain facts were available at the time the original complaint was filed, Ms. Grant tried to exercise caution with respect to certain subjects to ensure that her civil suit would not frustrate the DOJ’s efforts,” wrote Grant’s attorneys, led by Ann Callis.
McMahon’s legal team denies Grant’s allegations against him and has stated that prosecutors’ criminal investigation into his conduct has ended without charges. A decision from federal appeals court judges last month seemed to undermine that notion about the status of the investigation when that court referred to the investigation as “ongoing”. One of McMahon’s attorneys last month stated the investigation is finished, “with no ambiguity”. When we asked McMahon’s representatives last month if they had written documentation showing that the criminal investigation had concluded, they didn’t respond.
One of the significant disputes in Grant’s filing is the relevance of the SEC’s findings against McMahon. WWE and McMahon’s attorneys argue that the SEC’s settlement and fines levied this past January were about financial disclosure violations, not the allegations of coercion and sexual abuse at the center of Grant’s case. The defendants contend that the regulatory action has no bearing on whether Grant was forced into signing a nondisclosure agreement under duress. Grant’s legal team disagrees, asserting that the SEC’s order referenced the NDA at issue in her lawsuit as well as McMahon’s efforts to conceal settlements with at least one other woman.
“These facts are material to this Court’s assessment of whether the illegal NDA agreement can be enforced,” Grant’s attorney wrote. “Defendants hope to obscure these facts, or at least avoid having to address them while operating under the Amended Complaint, while using the arbitration clause contained in that illegal agreement as both a sword and shield in this case.”
The defendants have so far strongly pushed to move Grant’s case into private arbitration, citing the relevant clause in the NDA that she signed and that McMahon signed on behalf of both himself and WWE in January 2022.
Friday’s filing also raises information from Grant’s related case in state court in Connecticut involving Dr. Carlon Colker and his clinic Peak Wellness, the medical facility that Grant says McMahon directed her to go to for treatments she alleges she did not fully understand. Grant’s attorneys stated that Colker’s legal team has admitted withholding her medical records, a claim they argue supports her allegations that McMahon controlled multiple aspects of her life, including her medical treatment. Grant’s petition against Colker for records related to her treatment is still ongoing in Connecticut Superior Court.
Callis provided the following statement shortly after this article was published:
“Ms. Grant is grateful and empowered by the support she has received from the community and looks forward to holding Vince McMahon, John Laurinaitis, and WWE accountable for facilitating the sex trafficking and abuse she endured at the company.”
Grant’s lawyers additionally argue that her updated complaint provides greater detail on the alleged coercion she endured, which the court should hear, stating that the amendments serve “to explain the extreme and prolonged abuse Plaintiff was withstanding with greater particularity. The coercion surrounding the agreement and arbitration clause is undeniably relevant to this Court’s assessment of Defendants’” intention to move the case to arbitration.
Among other arguments, McMahon and WWE have insisted that the arbitration clause in the NDA is enforceable due to Grant’s acceptance of the initial $1 million payment, the length of time — two years — she waited between signing the NDA and filing her lawsuit.
Judge Sarah F. Russell will decide whether to allow Grant’s updated 94-page complaint to formally become part of the case or whether to deny her motion and move forward with her original 67-page complaint, filed in January 2024.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He operates and owns Wrestlenomics.
This article was also published for Wrestlenomics subscribers. Signup now on
Patreon
or Substack
to unlock access to paywalled and ad-free reporting and analysis on the business of pro wrestling.
This article has been updated to include details about WWE’s opposition filing, which happened after this article was first posted.
Vince McMahon’s legal team on Friday filed an expected opposition to Janel Grant’s attempt to amend her lawsuit against him, WWE, and former executive John Laurinaitis. This latest filing from McMahon is in response to Grant’s expanded complaint, which added new details and allegations against McMahon and others.
WWE filed its separate opposition to Grant’s amendment on Friday evening.
The oppositions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, presents cases to block Grant’s motion to amend her complaint, arguing that her request is untimely. McMahon’s filing goes further, claiming the expanded complaint is made in bad faith.
Grant’s lawsuit alleges that when she was a WWE employee she was sexually assaulted by McMahon and Laurinaitis, and trafficking by McMahon, who was allegedly enabled by the company.
“[Grant’s] filing is teeming with proposed additional allegations” that were available to her when she filed her initial complaint “and is a bad faith attempt to use this Court’s docket to gain an advantage in the court of public opinion,” wrote McMahon’s attorneys, led by Jessica T. Rosenberg of the Akin Gump firm.
McMahon’s lawyers argue that any new allegations related to his alleged coercion of Grant into signing a January 2022 NDA, which is a central element in the legal case, are irrelevant because she accepted the first $1 million settlement payment. By keeping the financial compensation, they argue, Grant effectively ratified the contract, nullifying any claims of duress.
WWE’s filing argues against that the notion raised by Grant’s attorneys, that the SEC settlement with McMahon in January is “a material development that his highly relevant”. The company’s legal representation, led by Daniel Toal of Paul Weiss, claim that the SEC settlement only supports the validity of the NDA between McMahon and Grant, as the SEC presupposed that the contract was enforceable. Therefore, in WWE’s view, and that of the other defendants, the arbitration clause in the NDA should be upheld, moving this matter out of public court.
An attorney for Laurinaitis submitted a filing later on Friday, adopting the arguments asserted by McMahon’s team. As of Friday afternoon, WWE’s attorneys had yet to submit a filing in opposition to the amendment.
McMahon’s side contends that Grant has provided no legitimate reason for the delay in filing the amendment and that many of the proposed changes—few of which, they say, are even new allegations—are legally futile.
The filing accuses Grant’s legal team of attempting to inject “stale” allegations for media attention, citing her attorneys’ previous statements. The opposition document also asserts that many of Grant’s new claims stem from information she purportedly had when the lawsuit was initially filed but chose not to include at the time.
Grant’s team put out a press release simultaneously with the filing of her updated complaint last month. McMahon characterized the press release as “tabloid-style,” citing its claims that the amended lawsuit contained “never-before-seen text and voice messages from McMahon” that “pull[] back the curtain on the dangerous workplace culture McMahon created at WWE.”
“The Proposed Amended Complaint is the fulfillment of [Grant’s] stated objective to bring ‘more firepower’ to her case from a PR perspective,” McMahon’s new filing stated, referencing remarks made by Grant’s attorney Ann Callis during a media call last September.
Callis, in that call, emphasized the need for stronger public messaging, stating that “[Grant] deserves to be portrayed as a survivor of human trafficking and sexual abuse. To that end, we recently brought on additional firepower through Kendra [Barkoff Lamy] and her team at SKDK.”
Grant’s proposed amended complaint, submitted in late January, significantly expanded the length of her original lawsuit, growing from 67 to 101 pages. Among the new allegations, Grant claims McMahon instructed her to create explicit content for WWE creative executive Michael Hayes and that McMahon shared explicit images of her without her consent. The complaint also states that McMahon attempted to arrange a sexual encounter between Grant and WWE star Brock Lesnar as part of his contract negotiations.
Further, the lawsuit details McMahon’s alleged involvement in directing Grant to undergo treatments at Dr. Carlon Colker’s clinic, Peak Wellness, where she claims she was prescribed substances without knowing what they were. Colker, previously referred to in the lawsuit as “Celebrity Doctor,” is now identified by name, and Grant reserves the right to add him as a defendant.
WWE also argued against Grant’s claims that allegations against Colker present any new facts that justify amending her lawsuit, despite Grant’s petition in Connecticut state court for records from the doctor.
“The fact that Grant hopes to obtain additional information in a separate action at some point in the future does not provide good cause to amend,” WWE’s lawyers stated.
The complaint also explicitly names WWE executives who were previously anonymized. WWE President Nick Khan, former Chief Operating Officer Brad Blum, and former General Counsel Brian Nurse are now referenced in the complaint. They are not accused of any physical abuse, but Grant alleges executives enabled McMahon.
McMahon’s opposition to the updated lawsuit characterizes changes to her complaint like those as merely a PR tactic that doesn’t add meaningful legal substance to her case.
McMahon maintains that the SEC’s action in January to penalize him $400,000 and order him to repay WWE $1.3 million is a procedural matter, not an admission of misconduct. The defendant’s attorneys emphasized that Grant had already made clear her intent to amend her complaint before the SEC’s decision was even made public.
Grant’s legal team frames the SEC penalties as further evidence of McMahon’s attempts to obscure financial transactions related to his alleged misconduct.
The timing of McMahon’s opposition follows a federal appeals court decision made earlier this month that upheld a lower court’s decision forcing McMahon and his former attorney to turn over documents to a grand jury. The ruling confirmed that prosecutors established probable cause that McMahon engaged in a scheme to circumvent WWE’s internal controls to conceal NDA payments tied to sexual misconduct allegations.
McMahon’s legal team insists that the investigation is over and will not result in criminal charges.
Judge Sarah F. Russell will determine whether Grant will be allowed to proceed with her amended complaint. If the court denies her motion, the lawsuit will remain in its original form, as filed in January 2024.
All three defendants have previously sought to move this case to private arbitration and will likely refile motions to do so after a decision is made on whether Grant’s amended complaint will stand.
WWE contends that nothing in what Grant added in her proposed complaint “moves the needle on WWE’s motion to compel [arbitration]”.
“Rather than alleging new facts purportedly relevant to the question of enforceability of the arbitration provision,” WWE’s attorneys stated, “Grant merely asserts the legal conclusion that she was “coerced and fraudulently induced to accept the arbitration provision.'”
“If anything, these new paragraphs strengthen WWE’s motion to compel by confirming that Grant was specifically aware of the arbitration provision before signing the Agreement because her attorney brought it to her attention,” the company’s lawyers added.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He operates and owns Wrestlenomics.
Thomas Wansaw, who wrestled for AEW as Beefcake Boulder, was arrested on January 13 in Orange County Florida, on charges of domestic battery by strangulation, a third-degree felony. Wansaw was reportedly released after the company learned of his arrest, according to Fightful and PWInsider.
According to the arrest affidavit filed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, which was viewed by Wrestlenomics along with other records related to the case, deputies responded to an apartment in Winter Garden, Florida, at 4:45 pm, following a domestic violence call. Upon arrival, the reporting officer found Wansaw, 34, already in custody and spoke with the victim, who reported being physically assaulted during an argument.
The victim, whose name we’re withholding because she’s not a public figure, told authorities that Wansaw pushed her to the ground and placed his foot on her throat, causing her to lose consciousness for several minutes. She believes she was then placed on the couch in the home, which Wansaw verified to police. When she regained consciousness, she managed to call 911. Officers observed visible injuries, including red marks and scratches around her neck and a bruise on her hand, according to the affidavit submitted by officer Javier Rincon.
Wansaw admitted to the altercation, the record from police states, providing an account said to be consistent with what the victim stated to officers.
“Thomas Wansaw stated he knows what he did was not right but [the victim] made some negative comments about his job and he became upset,” the affidavit states.
Presumably this refers to his job as a wrestler working for AEW, but the affidavit doesn’t mention the company or specify what his job is. He also mentioned to police a separate incident earlier in the day in which the victim allegedly brandished, but Wansaw declined to pursue that matter.
The victim told police this wasn’t the first time Wansaw had become physically violent with her.
“[I]t happened approximately five to ten times over the course of their relationship,” she reportedly told police.
She said Wansaw attends anger management course where “he is a completely different person.”
Later while speaking with police, the victim said she did not want Wansaw to go to jail because of the financial stain that would cause on their relationship. She decided not to complete a written statement for police because she didn’t want him to go jail, according to the affidavit. She reportedly asked police if she recanted her story if that would prevent Wansaw from going to jail, but police advised her that he would going to jail regardless.
Following the arrest, Wansaw was booked into the Orange County Detention Facility where he was initially held without bond.
AEW hasn’t commented on this story. It’s unclear when AEW first learned of Wansaw’s arrest or how soon after that he was terminated by the company. At the time of this report, Wansaw, as “Boulder” still appears on the official roster page for AEW’s affiliate Ring of Honor.
Court records filed the following day, in which Wansaw applied to represented by a public defender, indicate his take home income is $3100 every two weeks. Annualized, that comes out to just over $80,000 per year.
Wansaw was initially released the day after his arrest under the conditions that he have no contact with the victim, that he maintain a separate residence from her, and that he not possess any weapons.
On January 15, two days after his arrest, Wansaw submitted a plea of not guilty.
Later, on January 27, after a statement was provided by the victim, Ninth Judicial Circuit Judge Vincent Falcone granted Wansaw’s motion to modify the no contact order to an order of no hostile or violent contact with the victim. The order to maintain separate residences was also removed. The order to not possess weapons remained in place.
At this time, there are no additional entries on the docket for Wansaw’s case beyond January 27.
Wansaw, as Beefcake Boulder, was one-half of the tag team Iron Savages, and had been a part of AEW’s roster since 2022. His last match with AEW was taped on January 11 for ROH on HonorClub, two days before his arrest, and aired on January 16, three days after the arrest.
Note: The complaint contains graphic allegations of sexual assault and sex trafficking.
The document below is the amended complaint submitted on January 31, 2025. The original complaint was filed a year prior, on January 25, 2024, and can be found through CourtListener here.
