23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have requested the dismissal of their appeal of the preliminary injunction ruling.
Videos by FanBuzz
The request was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Wednesday, Nov. 20.
"Circumstances have changed in the underlying case, removing the need for this appeal and necessitating Appellants to seek new relief from the district court," the request stated.
"Appellants respectfully request that the court grant the voluntary dismissal of this appeal, along with the accompanying motion to expedite with each side bearing its own costs. Appellants understand that this proceeding will be dismissed and cannot be reinstalled at a later date."
23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports did not provide details about the circumstances that have changed.
The appeal, which the two Cup Series teams filed on Nov. 12, followed Judge Frank D. Whitney denying the request for a preliminary injunction that would have removed the anticompetitive clause from the open and charter agreements.
This would have allowed the two teams to continue competing in NASCAR while continuing with the antitrust lawsuit. The preliminary injunction would have also allowed the two teams to race under the new charter agreement for the duration of the lawsuit.
NASCAR chose to remove the language from the open agreement after the 2024 season ended. This meant that 23XI and Front Row could continue the lawsuit while racing as open teams next season.
What does the voluntary dismissal mean? That remains unclear heading into the heart of the offseason. The teams could refile the preliminary injunction in District Court.
This is an option that Judge Whitney presented when denying the initial preliminary request. However, the burden was on 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports to show that they "will likely" suffer irreparable harm without the preliminary injunction. The judge previously indicated that the two teams had only presented speculative evidence.
"Plaintiffs have not met their burden as required for a preliminary injunction," the judge said in his Nov. 8 ruling. "Should circumstances change, Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice."
