The controversial legal fight between Michael Jordan-owned 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports has erupted into contentious court papers over holiday planning.
As Sportico detailed on Tuesday, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have submitted a renewed activity for a initial order. Even if the injunction was granted, the two groups could still compete as de facto chartered clubs if they did n’t sign a contract. Even though contract teams agree to give up prospective statements as a situation of a contract, this would also prevent the two teams from forfeiting competitive claims.
The first action for injunction was denied by U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney, who claimed that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports had failed to establish the specific damage or harms that may result from a non-injunction. The two teams claim that, absent an injunction, they will sacrifice their competitive claims by coming to a mutually advantageous agreement to purchase a contract from Stewart-Haas racing.

Through lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports argued that Whitney should set up an expedited presentation and hear schedule in response to the restored motion. The team claimed that an accelerated timeline is justified by the time-sensitive character of their movement and the Thanksgiving holiday.
Front Row Motorsport and 23XI Racing added that their “business lovers have requested meetings to take place as soon as this year.” The two groups also noted that Dec. 17, 18 and 20 are all important dates to “meet specific legal deadlines” though the teams declined to explain what those deadlines problem. The defendants proposed that NASCAR respond to their renewed action by Dec. 6, followed by the plaintiffs ‘ responding to NASCAR’s answer by Dec. 10 and Whitney holding a hearing on Dec. 12 or Dec. 13.
However, NASCAR argued through Tricia Wilson Magee that the plaintiffs had not established a compelling basis for the regular schedule and that Whitney should accept their request. According to NASCAR, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports “intentionally” dropped “it on NASCAR and the Court” in a “late day submitting… on the day of the Thanksgiving holiday” and “tactically delayed” filing their fresh activity for a initial order for more than a year.
NASCAR even made a point of noting that the plaintiffs had discussed their intention to file a new activity on social media but then had to wait “many hours” before filing it in court. According to NASCAR, a “general statement” that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports must “meet certain commercial deadlines” is not appropriate, especially since, as NASCAR put it,” Defendants decided to wait to take this renewed movement for over a week after becoming conscious of their alleged” change circumstances” led to this being delayed. Additionally, NASCAR noted that its prosecutors are currently “working diligently” to meet other dates in the prosecution, including a motion to dismiss by December 2 and a response to the plaintiffs ‘ problem.

Whitney weighed the fighting claims and, in a decision Wednesday, declined to adopt the defendants ‘ proposed plan.
Noting the judge’s “inherent authority to manage its docket”, Whitney picked Dec. 9 rather of Dec. 6 for when NASCAR must answer, and Dec. 12 rather of Dec. 10 for when 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports you listen to NASCAR’s answer. A hearing date for the renewed motion was set by the judge, who stated that the date would be published in a later order. To the extent 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports ca n’t postpone their contractual deadlines for Dec. 17, 18 and 20, whether Whitney schedules a hearing ( and renders a decision ) by Dec. 17 could prove crucial.
Whitney presides over multiple cases simultaneously, just like other federal district judges. When weighing his ability to flex his schedule to the needs of a party, even one with a multibillion-dollar following, like Michael Jordan or NASCAR, it is important to take this into account. A quick look at Whitney’s schedule from Dec. 9 to Dec. 17 finds he has scheduled hearings for other cases, including sentencing hearings for defendants in criminal prosecutions involving carjacking, theft of government funds and other crimes. Although pro sports litigations typically feature high financial stakes and garner media attention, judges typically treat them similarly to other cases and do n’t prioritize them based on their celebrity status.