NASCAR files for mediation with 23XI, Front Row Motorsports ahead of December trial

NASCAR on Monday motioned to the Western District of North Carolina and Judge Kenneth D. Bell to order a judicial settlement conference, per Matt Weaver of Motorsport. NASCAR wishes to reach a settled resolution with 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports ahead of the scheduled Dec. 1 trial by jury.
According to Weaver, legal representatives of the teams met with legal representatives of NASCAR earlier this summer in New York to discuss settlement terms. No progress was made. 23XI and FRM previously stated they were open to a settlement.
“Accordingly, NASCAR believes that the parties would benefit from a facilitated settlement discussion with a distinguished member of the bench who could provide unique insight into a jury trial in a complex matter such as this one in front of a jury in this District,” the filing states. “Recognizing the value of a judicial settlement conference, this Court has previously indicated a willingness to offer a judicial settlement conference at a similar stage in the proceedings: after efforts with a private mediator and following the close of discovery and filing of summary judgment motions.”
Jeffrey Mishkin, former Chief Legal Officer of the NBA, was the appointed mediator for the failed settlement talks in August. Weaver said in his report, “23XI and Front Row appear as if they want to continue any mediation efforts with Mishkin overseeing the conversations.”
Of the 15 Cup Series teams that hold the 36 available charters, 23XI and FRM were the only teams that did not sign the Charter Agreement last August. They filed a joint lawsuit against NASCAR and its CEO Jim France in October, alleging monopolistic practices. 23XI and FRM, who have been racing as open teams since July, filed a preliminary injunction request to regain their charter status for the remainder of the 2025 season.
Judge Bell ruled against the teams last month, noting that NASCAR agreed to leave six charters out of 40 available pending the outcome of the case. That keeps 23XI and FRM from being subject to “irreparable harm.”
NASCAR team owners named in filing vs. 23XI, FRM
The sanctioning body last Friday submitted a request for summary judgment regarding the Sherman Act violations that the teams have accused NASCAR of. The filing includes statements from multiple Cup team owners.
Top 10
- 1New
AP Poll Prediction
Big change up on deck
- 2Hot
Kirby Smart
Tricks officials in win vs. Auburn
- 3
Drew Allar injury
Severity revealed on PSU QB
- 4
Hoosiers Football
Cements contender status after win
- 5Trending
Penn State's future
Franklin faces job questions
Get the Daily On3 Newsletter in your inbox every morning
By clicking "Subscribe to Newsletter", I agree to On3's Privacy Notice, Terms, and use of my personal information described therein.
The defendants, NASCAR and France, requested that Judge Bell give summary judgment regarding the alleged violations of the Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2. There are multiple reasons listed as to why the defendants believe summary judgment is appropriate in this situation.
Team owners such as Rick Hendrick, Richard Childress, Joe Gibbs, Brad Keselowski, and more voluntarily provided statements as part of the filing. Those statements are all centered around the charter system, the desire of the owners to see it continue, and their desire to see the charters become permanent.
“The most important thing to me is that this lawsuit is resolved amicably, quickly, and in a manner that preserves the Charter system and the long-term viability of our incredible sport,” Gibbs’ statement read. “… I have repeatedly expressed my strong desire for the Charter system to become permanent in nature, and I continue to hold out hope that will one day be the case.”
NASCAR believes the case can resolved prior to trial. They believe both parties are in full agreement on that.
“This is an area where the parties are actually in full agreement,” the filing states. “NASCAR would also like to resolve this case prior to trial and believes that the parties should be able to reach a reasonable resolution with the assistance of a neutral judicial officer.”
On3’s Jonathan Howard contributed to this report.