On Thursday, in a legal motion filed by the attorneys representing 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports in their lawsuit against NASCAR, the two teams sought to clarify the relief it was asking the court in advance of the antitrust process starting in earnest.
In the motion, the teams asked federal judge Kenneth Bell to effectively force NASCAR to approve the transfer of the Stewart-Haas Racing charter purchased by Front Row Motorsports in April. This is in addition to the teams asking the court to force NASCAR to recognize the two teams as chartered over the duration of the antitrust lawsuit proceedings.
On Friday, NASCAR filed a motion for the court to recognize this as a new motion and not a clarification as 23XI Racing and Front Row made a new ask of the Western District of North Carolina. It’s an important distinction because court regulations allow for Defendants, in this case NASCAR, to respond to each injunctive request in writing before oral arguments.
Thus, NASCAR has asked the court to ‘strike’ or remove from legal history this new request, ‘or in the alternative … request the opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’ new grounds for a preliminary injunction by filing an opposition to these additional requests for a preliminary injunction in accordance with the Court’s applicable rules.’
At the same time, NASCAR only just denied the transfer last week, which is why 23XI and Front Row included this request to the court on Thursday. The teams specifically provided written testimony from Stewart-Haas Racing president Joe Custer and Front Row general manager Jerry Freeze that the sanctioning body had agreed to the transfer but reneged on that agreement.
The NASCAR filing states:
“Plaintiffs’ position confirms that Plaintiffs have requested new relief, not offered ‘clarification’ as they represented to the Court earlier today. Specifically, Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction that requires:
- Defendants to approve the transfer of Stewart-Haas Racing’s NASCAR Cup Series Charter Member Agreement to Front Row
- That this Court enjoin Defendants from enforcing ‘any additional release that Defendants now claim to be required as part of the transfer process.’
Neither of these new requests is an appropriate additional request as part of a reply brief. Plaintiffs untimely and procedurally improper attempt to seek a third bite at the preliminary injunction apple should be stricken.”
NASCAR calls it a third bite at the apple because the teams motioned for injunctive relief in October, but the judge denied it on the basis that harm was possible and not imminent, while also covered under potential judgement with the teams then choosing to refile based on four examples of new evidence. NASCAR claims this as a third try because the SHR charter transfer request was not part of the first two requests for the court to provide injunctive relief prior to the start of the antitrust hearing.
NASCAR’s filing can be read in full through the link below.
Teams response
Representing the two teams, attorney Jeffrey Kessler said NASCAR created the new evidence by officially stating that it would deny the request in its own motion, and that it was an example of the continued anticompetitive behavior that led to the lawsuit in the first place.
“The Court should deny Defendants’ alternative request to further respond to Plaintiffs’ ‘new grounds’ for a preliminary injunction. Not only have Defendants already had that opportunity, but also they created those ‘new grounds’ and then fired the first salvo in briefing.
“Defendants are well aware that Plaintiffs have requested a ruling on their renewed motion by December 18, and they should not be permitted to further delay the proceedings and benefit because they engaged in additional exclusionary act.”
The teams state that they had ‘no reason to suspect that NASCAR would abruptly reverse course and reject the transfer on December 5—after Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion, but before Defendants filed their opposition.’
In other words, the teams said they never included the SHR charters, one that was purchased by Front Row and another by 23XI, because they cited evidence on Thursday that indicated the transfers would be approved.
The filing states that Front Row acted in a timely manner as expected based on a conversation between Freeze and NASCAR president Steve Phelps.
Citing a legal precedence, the teams also quoted a decision that said “a district court may consider an argument raised for the first time on reply under appropriate circumstances.”
23XI and Front Row believe officially denying the transfer request was an appropriate circumstance.
The teams also said NASCAR did not specify the ‘new arguments’ that should be stricken from the record and cannot ask the court to determine which ones on their behalf.
The teams’ filing can be read in full through the link below.
Lawsuit timeline
23XI Racing, Front Row decline to sign NASCAR’s final 2025-2031 charter document
Why 23XI, Front Row filed a lawsuit against NASCAR
23XI, Front Row makes his case in antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR
Richard Childress says he had ‘no choice’ but to sign charter document
How drivers feel about the lawsuit
Michael Jordan comments on his team’s lawsuit against NASCAR
Meet NASCAR’s antitrust defense lawyer
NASCAR files injunction to be included in charter system through lawsuit
NASCAR motions against team’s preliminary injunction request
NASCAR, teams consent to redacting charter details in filings
Teams make case for injunctive relief, expedited discovery
NASCAR’s lengthy rebuttal to injunction, lawsuit
Teams respond to NASCAR response over injunction
23XI, Front Row and NASCAR go to court over injunctions
Judge rules against teams preliminary injunction request
Denny Hamlin says 23XI may not race next year
What preliminary injunction denial means for lawsuit
NASCAR drops ‘lawsuit release clause’ in open agreement
Appeal timeline rebuttal filed by NASCAR
Why 23XI may not have to race in the Clash without charters
Teams drop appeal, may re-file in district court
23XI, Front Row re-file injunction request
NASCAR opposes expedited timeline
France, NASCAR motion to dismiss, deny SHR charter transfer request
NASCAR says injunctive request still fails to show irreparable harm
Teams say NASCAR went back on its word over SHR charters
NASCAR wants request to force SHR charter transfer stricken