AVONDALE, Ariz. — U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney denied a preliminary injunction Friday that was sought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports.
The injunction would have allowed both Cup organizations to have competed as either a charter or an open team in 2025 without losing their right to continue their antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR.
The teams will appeal the decision.
Jeffrey Kessler, attorney for the teams, stated:
“We are pleased with the court’s decision to expedite discovery and fast track the schedule in our case against NASCAR. Although we are disappointed that the preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice and as premature, which we intend to appeal, this denial has no bearing on the merits of our case. My clients will move forward to race in 2025 and continue to fight for a more fair and equitable system in NASCAR that complies with antitrust law.”
23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have the right to appeal Friday’s order.
A hearing took place Monday. 23XI Racing co-owners Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin and Curtis Polk attended, as did Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins.
Jeffrey Kessler, attorney for the teams, stressed to the judge Monday the importance of granting the teams charter rights by saying: “If we do not have charters, our drivers are free to leave, including the driver who may be the champion of NASCAR.”
Kessler was speaking about 23XI Racing’s Tyler Reddick, who will compete against Joey Logano, Ryan Blaney and William Byron for the Cup championship Sunday in Phoenix (coverage begins at 2 p.m. ET on NBC).
NASCAR’s attorney stated in Monday’s hearing that the sanctioning body had withdrawn the offered 2025 Charter Agreements to 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, and there are no pending negotiations.
Judge Whitney, in his decision Friday, stated that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports “have not met their burden as required for a preliminary injunction.
“Should circumstances change, Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.”
The decision was released as NASCAR President Steve Phelps was meeting with reporters as part of his state of the sport session at Phoenix Raceway. Phelps had no comment on the ruling.
In the order, the judge noted that “To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a strong prospect of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of equities favors the movant; and (4) an injunction is in the public’s interest.”
In the order, Judge Whitney writes: “Although Plaintiffs have alleged that they will face a risk of irreparable harm, they have not sufficiently alleged present, immediate, urgent irreparable harm, but rather only speculative, possible harm. That is, although Plaintiffs allege they are on the brink of irreparable harm, the 2025 racing season is months away—the stock cars remain in the garage.
“First, Plaintiffs have not alleged a “present prospect” that they will be harmed by the loss of sponsors. Instead, they have alleged a possibility that they will lose sponsorship agreements. Such potential harm of loss of sponsorship is too speculative to give rise to a preliminary injunction.
“Second, Plaintiffs have not alleged a “present prospect” of the loss of their drivers. Instead, they allege that their drivers may leave if Plaintiffs compete as open teams. Presently, this harm is too speculative to merit a preliminary injunction.
“Third ... Plaintiffs have not alleged that their business cannot survive without a preliminary injunction. Instead, they allege that their businesses may not survive without a preliminary injunction.
“Fourth, although loss of goodwill may justify injunctive relief ... Plaintiffs have alleged only a potential loss of goodwill, contingent on a host of events occurring, including speculation about how third parties may or may not act.
“Finally, the possibility that NASCAR may exclude open teams, is merely speculative. Based on the parties’ representations at the hearing, the Court understands Plaintiffs could sign open contracts today and continue racing in 2025. Instead, they have chosen not to because they have been unable to negotiate a contract without the provision of which they complain. As such, this speculative harm does not warrant the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction.”
The judge went on to write: “At this stage, the teams are no closer to irreparable harm than they are to the command, ‘Drivers, start your engines,’ at the first race of the 2025 season.”
The judge added in his order that “the Court intends to assign this case to the fast track as defined in this Court’s standing orders. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to file an answer by the already-established responsive pleading deadline of December 2, 2024, even if it is accompanied by a motion to dismiss. The Court also DIRECTS the parties to conduct the Initial Attorneys Conference as soon as possible after the responsive pleading is filed and to file the Rule 26(f) report no later than December 16, 2024, so that a case management order can promptly issue.”
