In an antagonism memo filed in a North Carolina federal district court on Monday night, NASCAR contends that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, the owners of Michael Jordan, are the “frivolous” legal dispute that has “rewritten commercial terms” to be better to those accepted by certified teams.
The second attempt at a preliminary injunction by Top Row and 23XI Racing is in dispute in the memo. Even if the order was granted, the two teams could still compete as de facto certified teams if they didn’t sign a charter. Additionally, an injunction would prevent 23XI Racing and Top Row from reversing competitive claims, as additional teams have done by signing a contract. Additionally, an injunction may last until a test, which would probably not happen for a long time. Antitrust disputes typically last for several years, especially when they involve parties with a lot of money to spend on lawyers ( Jordan and NASCAR are both billionaires ).
In early November, U. S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney denied the Jordan-backed team’s second movement for a preliminary injunction generally because, he said, the defendants failed to show how they would be harmed without an order. Without providing any detail or supporting data, Whitney criticized 23XI Racing and Front Row for prediction that owners, partners, and fans would reduce relationships.
To address that critique, 23XI Racing and Front Row filed a second ( or “renewed” ) motion for a preliminary injunction in late November. Although a significant portion of the activity has been redacted, it contends that Front Row and 23XI Racing were facing a real and imminent risk of losing a package. 23XI Racing and Front Row had” contracted” to make a “purchase from Stewart-Haas Racing” and their package seemingly hinged on 23XI Racing and Top Row obtaining a transfer.
In its latest submitting written by Tricia Wilson Magee and another attorneys from Shumaker, Loop &, Kendrick and Latham &, Watkins, NASARC argues 23XI Racing and Front Row’s second attempt also falls “far little” in establishing the need for a primary injunction, which judges just grant “in the most remarkable circumstances”.
NASCAR contends the plaintiffs have “manufactured evidence” in an attempt to claim” speculative” and” self-inflicted” harm. Even if the injury materialized, NASCAR contends it would be “redressable with economic damage” and therefore ill-suited for an order. An order is intended to stop catastrophic injury, which is harm that cannot be repaired with money.
To assist those assertions, NASCAR maintains that even if some drivers who contest for 23XI Racing and Front Row had left them, that possibility “is completely self-inflicted”. NSCAR attributes this possibility to “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.”
More specifically, NASCAR underscores that while 23XI Racing and Front Row argue “]Tyler ] Reddick can leave” his association with 23XI Racing, that doesn’t mean Reddick “actually plans to leave”. Further, the plaintiffs contend that a” suggestion” in a court document stating Reddick might leave” contradicts his numerous reaffirmations post-lawsuit” that he” stands behind” 23XI Racing and his decision to join the team “has not changed”.
In that same vein, NASCAR accuses 23XI Racing and Front Row of” creating” the so-called “new circumstances” used to justify an injunction.
NASCAR notes that Bubba Wallace and 23XI signed a multiyear contract extension in September, even though 23XI had not yet signed a Charter for 2025, and then that 2XI Racing and Front Row “announced that they would race as open teams without a Charter.” Five days later, 2XI Racing announced that they would compete as open teams.
Although partially redacted, NASCAR’s memorandum also references” seemingly prepared-for-litigation emails” that are” similarly-worded” regarding drivers and their contracts—” suggesting”, NASCAR argues,” a coordinated effort behind the scenes” to have 23XI Racing and Front Row drivers give the impression they were thinking about leaving. No driver has indicated his intention to actually leave, according to NASCAR.
NASCAR contends that the outcome is speculative in light of potential losses of sponsorships for 23XI Racing and Front Row. NASCAR contends that since they initiated the high-profile litigation, 23XI Racing and Front Row would be held responsible for those losses even if they did.
” A party’s decision to initiate a lawsuit and engage in disparaging press statements”, the memorandum asserts,” cannot serve as the basis for claiming entitlement to an injunction, as any resulting consequences are plainly self-inflicted”.
By December 12th, attorneys for 23XI Racing and Front Row will submit a rebuttal to the NASCAR arguments.