Originally appeared on E! Online
Channing Tatum wants to move forward.
The “Blink Twice” actor is firing back at ex Jenna Dewan‘s latest request in their ongoing divorce battle, accusing her motion of being a “delay tactic” and asked that it be denied, according to a filing obtained by E! News Aug. 28.
In the document, Tatum called out Dewan for filing a motion to disqualify his lawyers from working on their case three months before the pair are supposed to go to trial, claiming the move is a “transparent attempt to divert the Court’s attention” from her desire to “delay these proceedings.”
And the “Magic Mike” alum — who shares 11-year-old daughter Everly with Dewan — provided reasons why he believes her petition is simply an effort to stall, arguing that her request is “devoid of any legal or factual support.”
Noting that the Rookie actress — who filed for divorce from Tatum in 2018 — has “never been a client” at either of his teams’ law firms, the filing explained that his lawyers, therefore, do not possess any “confidential information” about her that would give them an unfair advantage in court.
“In short, Petitioner’s RFO is nothing more than a frivolous filing that has no basis in law or fact,” the document read, “and is solely designed to delay the upcoming trial in this action.”
And Tatum’s request didn’t end there. The 44-year-old — who is engaged to Zoë Kravitz — also asked that Dewan be required to reimburse him $20,000 for the legal fees that her delay has incurred, writing that the cost will hopefully “deter such obstreperous conduct in the future.”
E! News reached out to Dewan’s rep for comment but has not heard back.
This isn’t the first time Tatum has accused Dewan — who also shares son Callum, 4, and daughter Rhiannon, 2 months, with fiancé Steve Kazee — of slowing down their six-year legal battle.
Back in May, the actor made the same allegation after Dewan alleged in separate documents that he put earnings from his “Magic Mike” trilogy into “an irrevocable trust” and transferred licensing rights to a third party without telling her—despite them acquiring the franchise’s intellectual property rights together.
In response, Channing denied her claims, writing in a follow-up paperwork obtained by E!, “It is designed to delay the processing of the case and increase the expense of litigation and will not, in any way, promote ‘early resolution by settlement,’ in a case where five separate mediation sessions have resulted in Petitioner’s simply ignoring a tendered proposed judgment for months.”