Jeffrey Kessler releases statement for 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports after latest ruling

Today, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports received a pair of wins in court. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler has released a statement. The court denied two motions from NASCAR, one to dismiss the lawsuit entirely and another to force the teams to post a bond for the 2025 season.

Neither the motion to dismiss nor the motion for bond were granted. Judge Kenneth Bell denied the motions with a well-worded explanation for each decision. This means that the timeline for a trial is now in motion.

Jeffrey Kessler released this statement on behalf of 23XI and Front Row:

“We are pleased with today’s decision by Judge Bell to deny the Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Bond and look forward to presenting our case at trial,” Kesseler said in a statement shared with the media.

The decision today from Judge Bell is major. This will allow the lawsuit to continue but the bond part is very important as well.

Teams with charters receive about $5 million per charter each season for being part of the agreement. It’s guaranteed money that is supposed to help teams fund themselves. NASCAR wanted the money 23XI Racing and Front Row earn put into an escrow account for a bond.

In the event NASCAR wins the lawsuit, that bond would then be given to them to reimburse the series. However, Judge Bell did not see it as necessary and denied the motion.

23XI Racing, Front Row get another win against NASCAR

Based on the arguments and evidence, Judge Bell wasn’t buying it. In his decision today he laid out his reasoning behind denying both motions.

For the motion to dismiss:

“What is the actual evidence and how does it inform a correct legal conclusion? These questions cannot be determined on motions to dismiss in this action, where Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged one or more plausible antitrust claims against Defendants within the applicable period of limitations,” the court wrote.

Judge Bell addressed the motion for bond in his decision today as well. While NASCAR made its best argument, the court did not see eye-to-eye with the defendants.

His decision:

“While NASCAR sought to minimize the value that it will receive from Plaintiffs at oral argument, NASCAR has previously argued at length that the balance of payments and obligations for chartered teams is beneficial rather than harmful to NASCAR so, at least impliedly, the consideration paid to the chartered teams represents fair compensation for their obligations.

“However, NASCAR persuasively argued that its benefit from Plaintiffs racing as chartered teams may not be the same as received from the other chartered teams, in that Plaintiffs have not and will not be pulling their oars in the same direction as NASCAR and the other charter teams. Nonetheless, the alleged harm to NASCAR of allowing Plaintiffs to race chartered cars on the same terms as the other 30 chartered teams is presently both uncertain and unquantified.”