NASCAR filed a motion late Friday asking the U.S. District Court for a summary judgment in its ongoing battle with 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports.<\/p>\n
\u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 frontal assault on the NASCAR Charter system should not be permitted to proceed to trial,\u201d the motion states. \u201cPlaintiffs cannot succeed on either of their Sherman Act claims, including their claim that the Charter Agreement itself is an unlawful agreement in restraint trade. \u2026 Plaintiffs\u2019 case should come to an end (as the garage wants) so that the focus can return to exciting racing on the track for the remainder of 2025 and planning can begin for a pivotal 2026 season.\u201d<\/p>\n
NASCAR gave the following grounds for filing the motion:<\/p>\n
“1. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are time-barred. The statute of limitations for Sherman Act claims is four years. The bulk of the conduct Plaintiff challenges occurred between 2016 and 2019. Claims based on that conduct are long expired. Plaintiffs\u2019 reliance on the continuing violation doctrine is misplaced; that doctrine has no applicability here.<\/p>\n
2. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that Plaintiffs voluntarily and repeatedly released their claims. The Fourth Circuit already upheld that release language as ‘standard’ contractual language that released claims based on all sorts of prior conduct, including antitrust claims.<\/p>\n
3. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that Plaintiffs put forward a single, aggregated damages number for a purported ‘course of conduct,’ including time-barred conduct. Plaintiffs fail to distinguish damages for actionable and non-actionable conduct, rendering Plaintiffs\u2019 damages evidence inapplicable and leaving the jury only to speculate.<\/p>\n
4. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims. Plaintiffs concede they are not trying to start their own competing racing series. Thus, the allegedly exclusionary provisions in NASCAR\u2019s racetrack sanctions and Charter Agreements could not have caused them any harm. Plaintiffs also never signed the 2025 Charter Agreements and are not bound by any provisions therein. And Plaintiffs\u2019 damages expert conceded that he offers no opinion that the acquisitions caused Plaintiffs harm.<\/p>\n
5. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that 23XI entered the Cup Series eyes wide open. 23XI understood the terms of the Charter, believed that they were not competitive, and decided to go forward anyway. 23XI cannot now complain of being locked in. Plaintiffs\u2019 gerrymandered, fail-safe, alleged market should be rejected as a matter of law, even if the testimony of their expert satisfied Rule 702, which it does not.<\/p>\n
6. Finally, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Plaintiffs\u2019 Section 1 claim fails for lack of proof. Plaintiffs fail to provide any evidence on essential elements under the rule of reason. This is fatal at summary judgment.”<\/p>\n