{
  "id": 8280304,
  "title": "Joe Gibbs Racing motions to issue sanctions against Spire, Chris Gabehart",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/18/joe-gibbs-racing-motions-to-issue-sanctions-against-spire-chris",
  "topic": "culture",
  "section": "Culture",
  "published": "2026-09-18T17:41:50.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Motorsport.com",
    "slug": "motorsport-com",
    "url": "https://www.motorsport.com/nascar-cup/news/joe-gibbs-racing-motions-to-issue-sanctions-against-spire-chris-gabehart/10856957/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Joe Gibbs Racing (JGR) has filed a motion to seek sanctions against Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) placed against them in March. The motion seeks to hold both defendants in civil contempt for failing to comply with the court's orders.\n\nAccording to JGR, Gabehart and Spire have breached the court's orders by allowing Gabehart to perform duties similar to a competition director, which he was prohibited from doing after leaving JGR at the end of last season. Gabehart was accused of breaching contract and taking proprietary information to benefit Spire, leading to an ongoing lawsuit and countersuit between the three parties.\n\nThe motion includes various documents, such as email records, depositions, and text messages that demonstrate instances where Gabehart acted in a role similar to a competition director after the court issued its order. For example, on March 21, 2026, Gabehart discussed technical details regarding Spire's No. 77 and No. 71 cars with Spire's Cup Series competition director, Matt McCall, while the TRO was still in effect. A week later, on March 28, 2026, Spire's top Cup Series driver, Carson Hocevar, relayed specific technical difficulties with his car to Gabehart via text message, to which Gabehart responded with \"stop.\"",
  "summary": "Joe Gibbs Racing is asking the Western District of North Carolina to hold Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports in civil contempt because it claims both defendants have violated the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction placed against them in March. Specifically, JGR is asking that the defendants appear in court to explain why they should not be held in contempt. This is all ...…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}