SAD Departure: Michael Jordan Has Officially announced departing from NASCAR and reason why……

SAD Departure: Michael Jordan Has Officially announced departing from NASCAR and reason why……

Michael Jordan-owned 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have engineered a “frivolous” legal controversy to “rewrite contractual terms” superior to those accepted by chartered teams, NASCAR argues in an opposition memorandum filed in a North Carolina federal district court Monday night.

At issue in the memorandum is 23XI Racing and Front Row’s second attempt at a preliminary injunction.

If granted, the injunction would allow the two teams to compete as de facto chartered teams despite not signing a charter agreement.

An injunction would also ensure 23XI Racing and Front Row would not forfeit antitrust claims as other teams have done by signing a charter.

Further, an injunction could last until a trial, which would likely not occur for a long time.

From the filing of a complaint to a trial, antitrust litigations—especially when they involve parties with a lot of money to spend on lawyers (Jordan and NASCAR are both billionaires)—often last several years.

In early November, U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney denied the Jordan-backed group’s first motion for a preliminary injunction mainly because, he said, the plaintiffs failed to show how they would be harmed without an injunction.

Whitney criticized 23XI Racing and Front Row for forecasting that drivers, sponsors and fans would cut ties without offering specifics or evidence to corroborate that forecast.

To address that critique, 23XI Racing and Front Row filed a second (or “renewed”) motion for a preliminary injunction in late November.

Although much of the motion is redacted, it contends 23XI Racing and Front Row faced a tangible and imminent risk of losing a deal.

23XI Racing and Front Row had “contracted” to make a “purchase from Stewart-Haas Racing” and their deal apparently hinged on 23XI Racing and Front Row obtaining a release.

In its latest filing written by Tricia Wilson Magee and other attorneys from Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick and Latham & Watkins, NASCAR argues 23XI Racing and Front Row’s second attempt still falls “far short” in establishing the need for a preliminary injunction, which judges only grant “in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

NASCAR contends the plaintiffs have “manufactured evidence” in an attempt to claim “speculative” and “self-inflicted” harm.

Even if the harm materialized, NASCAR contends it would be “redressable with monetary damages” and thus ill-suited for an injunction.

An injunction is intended to remedy irreparable harm, meaning harm that monetary damages can’t fix.