NASCAR has responded to a second injunction request issued by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, as the two teams attempt to have the court force the sanctioning body into issuing them temporary charters.
The end goal in this second injunction request is to have both 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports be awarded temporary NASCAR Cup Series Charters for the duration of this antitrust lawsuit. A main point of argument for the teams, is that not being granted temporary charters would cause irreparable harm.
Judge Frank D. Whitney denied the first injunction request from the teams, saying that any damages were merely speculative and not certain, but the two organizations have now re-filed the case, arguing that there have been changes to the facts.
While most of those changes were redacted in the court documents, the one that wasn’t is related to NASCAR’s move to eliminate the language in the non-chartered teams document, that previously barred them from bringing a lawsuit on NASCAR.
“A month ago, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ first motion, characterizing their claimed harm as ‘speculative’ and ‘possible’, but not ‘immediate’ or ‘irreparable’. After seeking and then dismissing an expedited appeal, Plaintiffs now claim ‘changed circumstances’ to try and overcome this ruling. Yet, even with their manufactured evidence, Plaintiffs still fall far short of a clear showing of irreparable harm.”
NASCAR argues that none of the four reasons brought forward by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports as changed circumstances, cause the team irreparable harm, making the legal standing for the injunction request non-existent.
“Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction to allow them to run ‘under the terms of’ the Charter minus the release (from bringing a lawsuit). This effectively demands that NASCAR enter a now unwanted contractual relationship under terms of Plaintiffs’ choosing.”
Among the major arguments in the first preliminary injunction request were 23XI Racing and Front Row claiming that their drivers and sponsors could opt-out if the team didn’t have a charter, and that running as an Open Entry would leave them vulnerable to missing races.
The sanctioning body fired back in its most recent filing:
“Since that Order, nothing has changed. Plaintiffs recycle the arguments the Court already rejected. For instance, they suggest that drivers might leave absent a Charter. The first bullet in Plaintiffs’ Motion makes this abundantly clear: Reddick can leave. But a mere ‘possibility’ of harm is precisely what this Court properly rejected in its previous Order.
“Further, the fact that some—but not all—of Plaintiffs’ drivers could leave is entirely self-inflicted, stemming from driver contracts that Plaintiffs negotiated, Plaintiffs’ decision not to sign Charters despite being aware of those exit provisions, and Plaintiffs’ dramatic rhetoric at the hearing and to the press.”
Translation: NASCAR believes the teams brought it on themselves.
“Plaintiffs cannot manufacture a crisis by filing a lawsuit and then demanding relief from its consequences—that is just as inequitable as it is self-inflicted. And to the extent sponsor concerns are driven by the fact that Plaintiffs could fail to qualify for a race, such concerns are, as this Court already held, speculative.”
Both 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have attempted to acquire a third NASCAR Cup Series Charter from the now defunct Stewart-Haas Racing. However, this lawsuit has caused a snafu in the process – to the point where NASCAR is refusing to approve the transfer of charters.
Each of the teams has announced its intentions to field a third full-time entry at NASCAR’s top-level, with 23XI Racing confirming Herbst as its driver. Front Row Motorsports hasn’t yet announced a third driver.
“No extraordinary circumstances exist here: Plaintiffs had their chances to sign Charters but refused to take them, and were well aware that they would need to accept the Charter terms to which SHR agreed. Plaintiffs cannot now simply exclaim ‘monopoly’ to rewrite agreements giving[themselves] unilateral benefit.”
NASCAR further argues that the team’s willingness to spent millions of dollars to acquire another NASCAR Cup Series Charter, and their decision to field another open entry during this lawsuit, is evidence of the financial strength of the organizations.
“And the fact that 23XI intends to expand the number of cars it runs from two to four in 2025 underscores the sky is not really falling. Finally, even if Plaintiffs did fail to qualify for races, any loss of sponsorship would be entirely self-inflicted, as Plaintiffs had the chance to sign Charters that would have guaranteed them entry … but rejected the offer.”
