Tag: Janel Grant

Lawyers representing Janel Grant have filed a petition in Connecticut court.

Grant’s attorneys submitted a pre-action discovery petition against Peak Wellness Inc. and the company’s owner and CEO, Dr. Carlon Colker. The petition is seeking medical records related to Grant’s treatment at the clinic as it concerns her sex trafficking lawsuit against WWE, Vince McMahon, and John Laurinitis.

Grant alleges that McMahon arranged for her to be seen at the clinic and that she received pills and IV treatments from Colker but was never informed about the substances she was given.

A spokesperson for Vince McMahon issued the following statement to WON/F4W, stating that the filing by Grant’s attorneys is in violation of the court-ordered stay:

“Ms. Grant’s petition for pre-action discovery against Dr. Colker is a direct violation of the court-ordered stay, and nothing more than an attempt to generate publicity on her false allegations and to harass people connected to Mr. McMahon, who is being sued by Ms. Grant in a separate matter. The facts are that Ms. Grant told Mr. McMahon she was fatigued and asked him to recommend a doctor.  Ms. Grant called Dr. Colker and became a patient of his.  Her statement in the filing is inconsistent with her prior remarks.  Ms. Grant never had anything but good things to say about the doctor when speaking to Mr. McMahon and others about him.”

Grant’s attorneys are seeking to receive records of the following from Dr. Colker and Peak Wellness Inc:

1. Plaintiff’s electronic medical records, including all associated metadata;
2. Defendants’ recordkeeping and billing procedures;
3. Payment records relating to Ms. Grant;
4. Defendants’ payment arrangements with McMahon and/or the WWE;
5. The purpose of Ms. Grant’s prescribed treatments;
6. The substance of Ms. Grant’s prescribed treatments;
7. Any communications between Dr. Colker and McMahon relating to Ms. Grant; and
8. Dr. Colker’s involvement in recommending Ms. Grant’s attorney for negotiation of the purported non-disclosure agreement.

Other key parts of the petition read:

“Peak Wellness operates a medical center that markets itself as providing traditional medical care along with advanced diagnostics, functional medicine, naturopathy, physical medicine, anti-aging, and aesthetics.”

“Dr. Colker is Chief Executive Officer and Medical Director of the medical center. Upon information and belief, Dr. Colker routinely treats employees and talent of World Wrestling Entertainment.”

“In or about November 2019, McMahon arranged that Ms. Grant see Dr. Colker to treat her fatigue and insomnia. At McMahon’s direction, Ms. Grant began seeing Dr. Colker regularly. From November 22, 2019 through April 15, 2022, Ms. Grant saw Dr. Colker or another practitioner at Peak Wellness on at least 60 occasions.”

“On multiple visits, Dr. Colker prescribed Ms. Grant with ‘adrenal trays’ or ‘adrenal supplement trays,’ provided by his office and instructed her to take the unmarked pills daily. Dr. Colker did not explain the substances, dosages, or purpose of the pills to Ms. Grant beyond purportedly addressing her symptoms of fatigue. When Ms. Grant asked Dr. Colker about the substance of the supplement trays, and specifically which substance(s) caused her to experience nausea, he responded with pushback about trust, including, ‘If you don’t trust me, we have bigger problems.'”

“Dr. Colker also prescribed weekly I.V. infusions, and similarly did not disclose the substance of the infusions to Ms. Grant, other than a generalized description in a “drip lounge” menu. These treatments caused Ms. Grant to feel unwell during the I.V. sessions, which Dr. Colker attributed to individual ‘tolerance.'”

“Additionally, an employee of Peak Wellness also was involved in several instances of sexual abuse against Ms. Grant by McMahon as further described in Ms. Grant’s federal complaint.”

“On Ms. Grant’s last visit to Peak Wellness in April 2022, Dr. Colker demanded that she sign a statement that required her to provide a credit card to pay for her visits to the clinic. When Ms. Grant refused, Dr. Colker berated her and asked, ‘What’s the matter, Janel – is there a problem with money? Is this about the NDA?'”

“By letters dated February 5, 2024 and March 20, 2024, Ms. Grant, through counsel, requested her medical records from Peak Wellness in electronic format pursuant to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH Act”).”

“In response to each letter, Dr. Colker and Peak Wellness provided records to Ms. Grant’s counsel in paper copies only. Peak Wellness used electronic recordkeeping for Ms. Grant’s medical records, as she was instructed to utilize an iPad for administrative purposes, such as patient intake, in the Peak Wellness office. To date, despite repeated requests, Dr. Colker and Peak Wellness has failed or refused to provide Ms. Grant’s electronic medical records, including any associated metadata.”

“Upon review, Ms. Grant and her counsel noticed that the provided paper records are incomplete and inaccurate. For example, there are billing records that do not have a corresponding medical record, medical records that do not have a corresponding billing record, inconsistent billing rates, and double charges.”

“The medical records provided by Peak Wellness also do not contain a copy of Peak Wellness’ Privacy Policy, despite the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) requirement that covered entities distribute a plain-language Notice of Privacy Practices to all patients describing their policies for using and distributing protected health information.”

“Additionally, each of the “Patient Receipts” Defendants provided itemize the charges for each service provided and indicate that “Patient Paid” the full amount. However, Ms. Grant never received or paid a single medical bill from either Peak Wellness or Dr. Colker.”

“Upon information and belief, McMahon and/or WWE paid each of Ms. Grant’s medical bills from Peak Wellness and Dr. Colker, totaling over $51,000.”

“Further, Dr. Colker had personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding a purported non-disclosure agreement at issue in the Federal Action. Specifically, during the negotiation of the purported non-disclosure agreement, McMahon approved of Ms. Grant asking Dr. Colker for an attorney referral. Dr. Colker recommended Defendants’ attorney to Ms. Grant and, upon McMahon’s approval, Ms. Grant engaged that attorney to represent her in the negotiation of the purported non-disclosure agreement.”

“The information that Ms. Grant has requested is material and necessary to determine whether Defendants were civil conspirators in her pending claims against McMahon and the WWE.”

“The information is also material and necessary to determine whether Defendants have engaged in falsifying medical records, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) violations, RICO conspiracy, assault, battery, and/or breaches of fiduciary against Ms. Grant.”

“Plaintiff has potential causes of action sounding in civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, fraud, assault, battery, RICO, RICO conspiracy, and/or breach of fiduciary duty that will be supported by the materials sought.”

Grant’s lawsuit against WWE, McMahon, and Laurinitis is currently paused per a request from the Department of Justice as they continue a federal investigation into McMahon.

Janel Grant has agreed to pause her lawsuit against Vince McMahon, WWE, and John Laurinaitis.

According to comments from Ann Callis, the attorney representing Grant, her client has agreed to a request by the US Attorney’s office to stay her litigation pending a non-public investigation into the matter.

“Ms. Grant has consented to a request by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York to stay her case against Mr. McMahon, WWE and Mr. Laurinaitis, pursuant to a pending non-public investigation,” Ann Callis, an attorney for Grant, said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg on Thursday. “We will cooperate with all appropriate next steps.”

In February, The Wall Street Journal and ABC News reported that the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York had launched a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and sex trafficking against McMahon.

“Basically the Grant lawsuit is pausing at the request of the Justice Department as the goverment is conducting its own investigation,” wrote our own Dave Meltzer.

McMahon’s lawyer Jessica Rosenberg, a partner of Kasowitz, Benson Torres, issued the following statement to WON/F4W and other media:

“We remain confident the evidence will prove Ms. Grant’s allegations are false and her complaint is nothing more than a fabricated, vindictive narrative from a disgruntled former girlfriend.”

The stay is expected to last six months, a source close to the case stated to Bloomberg.

Vince McMahon’s attorneys have filed a new “Statement of Material Facts” in support of his motion to compel arbitration.

The court filing released on Wednesday argued that the facts McMahon submitted are ‘undisputed’ in nature and he reserves the right to introduce additional evidence.

“Defendant believes the material facts stated below are undisputed and conclusively resolve the forum dispute before the Court,” the new filing reads. “Should the Court find it necessary to conduct a hearing on any issue, Defendant respectfully reserves his right to introduce additional evidence that bears on witness credibility, sophistication, state of mind, and similar issues.”

According to the filing, McMahon and Grant entered a three-year relationship that ended in January 2022. When the relationship ended, a “confidential settlement agreement” was agreed to, and Grant herself “negotiated the monetary compensation” that McMahon offered from one million dollars to three million dollars before involving their attorneys in the case.

On January 27, 2022, Grant’s attorney sent a revised version of the draft agreement which included the following language:

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.

The agreement also included the following severability provision:

In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by an arbitration panel or court reviewing an arbitration decision, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be binding provided, however, if any of the confidentiality obligations of this Agreement are ever contended to be unenforceable by Grant, or are found to be unenforceable by any tribunal, Grant agrees that she shall return all monies paid pursuant to this Agreement to McMahon.

McMahon agreed to pay Grant three million dollars over four years through February 1, 2026. Both McMahon and Grant signed and dated the agreement on January 28, 2022, and ten days later McMahon issued the first payment of one million dollars.

On Monday, McMahon’s lawyers filed a new memo opposing Grant’s motion to strike McMahon’s preliminary statement.

Vince McMahon’s legal team filed a new memorandum today.

Lawyers representing the former WWE Chairman have responded to Janel Grant’s legal team filing a motion to strike comments included in McMahon’s motion to compel arbitration submitted on April 23.

Grant’s team contends that McMahon used the motion to spread “inflammatory lies” and that it was used “as a platform to launch vicious falsehoods attacking Janel’s moral character in an attempt to harass and intimidate her into submission.”

Today, McMahon’s team referred to Grant’s motion as the “height of hypocrisy.”

The full memorandum submitted today can be read here.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is meritless and the height of hypocrisy. Having falsely accused Defendant in a public forum, despite an obligation to arbitrate, in an inflammatory 67- page Complaint that completely disregards the mandate of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff now seeks to strike the Preliminary Statement of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. No. 30-1) on the purported basis that it is too “inflammatory.”

The memorandum continues to state that Grant’s lawsuit includes several text messages between her and McMahon but does not include Grant’s responses. They contend her responses to McMahon’s texts “are equally and often more aggressive and provocative.” However, it also notes that McMahon is no longer in possession of those text messages, as he has since deleted them.

Ignoring her obligations to keep the nature of their relationship or the dispute private, the Complaint unnecessarily includes private sexual text messages from Defendant without including any of Plaintiff’s responses to those texts—responses which are equally and often more aggressive and provocative than Defendant’s communications and show not only that the relationship was consensual, but also that in many instances the Plaintiff was the initiator.

Defendant’s communications and show not only that the relationship was consensual, but also that in many instances the Plaintiff was the initiator. Indeed, while Defendant no longer is in possession of the text messages between the Parties as he deleted them when he broke off the relationship, the discovery in this case will show that Plaintiff sent him sexually explicit images of herself and texted him to say, among other things:

• That she was in love with him and he was the love of her life;
• That he was her best friend;
• That she wanted to have sex with him and providing graphic detail;
• That she fantasized about being held down, enjoyed being in pain, and wanted rough sex;
• That she wanted Defendant to watch her have sex with other people and know about her sex with others;
• That she wanted Defendant to give her thousands of dollars for clothes, plastic surgery, and other gifts;
• That she wanted to have a future with Defendant even after signing the Agreement; and
• That she wanted Defendant to keep living in the same building, so she could continue to see him, even after signing the Agreement.

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike be denied,” the memorandum concludes.