Nascar Racers 2000

[Rosita Westhouse]

NASCARRacers is an animated television series by Saban Entertainment which features two rival NASCAR racing teams, Team Fastex and Team Rexcor, competing against each other in the futuristic NASCAR Unlimited Division. The series ran from 1999 to 2001 on Fox Kids.[2] Ownership of the series passed to Disney in 2001 when Disney acquired Fox Kids Worldwide, which also includes Saban Entertainment.[3][4][5]

While real life NASCAR tracks are mainly ovals, NASCAR Racers is anything but. The racers compete on a wide variety of courses, including road course, off-road, mountain, and Motorsphere. The Motorsphere track starts with a typical race track leading into a sphere, then tracks are wrapped around the inner surface of the sphere.

The NASCAR Unlimited Division features cutting edge, over-the-top technologies (from the show's point of view). To protect drivers from crashes, each race car has an inner Rescue Racer that ejects from the outer body if an accident happens. XPT racers, introduced in season 2, are the new race cars for Team Fastex. XPT racers use atomic fuel run by forced-combustion systems. Nitro Racers contain high-flux fusion units that can get maximum power out of atomic fuel.

Before Saban Entertainment was acquired by Disney on July 23, 2001 and the sale was finally completed on October 24, 2001, the group had already designed new concepts and storylines for a season 3 which were never put into motion due to an uncertain future with the group, mostly because Saban's sale required full attention.

A video game called NASCAR Racers was published in 2000 for Microsoft Windows[7] and Game Boy Color by Hasbro and developed by Software Creations (PC) and Digital Eclipse (GBC). A PlayStation version was planned but cancelled before release.

The 2000 Indianapolis 500 champion and former Formula One driver has traded in his stock car for another chance at open-wheel racing. He's joined a new but formidable team, and he's spent most of the offseason getting acclimated to his new digs.

"I do feel like a rookie. It's funny, people don't realize that," Montoya said this week after IndyCar drivers were given their annual physicals in Indianapolis. "I know a lot of the drivers were complaining about how much testing I got from IndyCar, but it's so different. It's hard to know how well up to speed I am, because I've been running by myself."

Dario Franchitti, a four-time IndyCar champion and three-time Indianapolis 500 winner, was forced to retire after he was injured in a frightening October crash. And for most of the last decade, IndyCar has seen some its top drivers leave for NASCAR or F1.

Tony Stewart, Danica Patrick, Sam Hornish Jr. and Robby Gordon all went from open-wheel racing to the higher-paying stock cars. Stewart is a three-time Cup champion and Patrick is the first woman to win the pole at Daytona. Some have had moderate success, like Gordon, a three-time winner in the Cup series. And others, such as Hornish, the 2006 Indy winner, have struggled.

Montoya was one of the world's most promising open-wheel racers in 2006 when he left F1 to join Chap Ganassi's NASCAR team. Twice he wound up a race winner and in 2009 he qualified for the season-ending Chase.

"With his knowledge and also his experience, it's going to be another weapon out there for Team Penske," new teammate and three-time Indy winner Helio Castroneves said. "With every series he's been in, he's been able to win races, so he certainly is going to help us develop and be even more competitive."

"What's really unique about Juan Pablo Montoya, I feel pretty comfortable in saying, he may be the most versatile driver at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway that this track has ever seen," Indy speedway President Doug Boles said. "He's run F1, he's run IndyCar, he's run Cup cars, he's run sports cars and he's ridden on the back of a MotoGP two-seater. He's run at speed in every form of racing we have here."

But in all those combined trips to Indy, Montoya has earned just that one trip to Victory Lane. He led 167 of 200 laps in his only 500 start, then jumped to F1 and never had a chance to reclaim the title.

"The Brickyard (400) is a big deal, but it's not the Indy 500," he said. "I never thought I'd be back here to try to get another win. I'm excited and to race here for Team Penske is a hell of a chance (to win)."

Plaintiffs have moved this court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from enforcing certain recently adopted rule clarifications for "modified" stock car racing and mandating that defendants allow Wissota racers, who wish to, the ability to use plaintiffs' transmission products. A hearing was held February 23, 2000, on this matter at which time the court took the motion under advisement. After reviewing the numerous affidavits and the deposition testimony filed with the court along with the motion papers, briefs, the testimony presented at the hearing and the arguments of counsel, the court is ready to rule. The relevant facts as adduced at the hearing, through filed affidavits, and deposition testimony, are as follows.

Plaintiffs are in the business of developing, producing, and selling products used in stock car racing. Ernie Brookins holds several patents for transmissions; his wife, Gail, is the record owner of the sole proprietorship, Ernie Glide Transmissions, which sells these products. Wissota Promoters Association, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, is the rule making authority and sanctioning body for a group of racetrack members-promoters who conduct amateur stock car races in the Midwest. The individual defendants are members of either the Wissota board of directors or the technical committee.

As a sanctioning body, Wissota has developed uniform rules for competition and vehicle specifications so that amateur oval track car racing competition can take place at multiple locations with the same applicable rules. Wissota sanctioned racing occurs in six states and two Canadian provinces, amounting to about 54 total racetracks. The promoters within Wissota, who are track owners or operators, are the only persons who may vote on policy decisions, including the rules of competition and vehicle specifications. Drivers, car owners, equipment manufacturers and suppliers may not vote and are not members of Wissota. At the last annual meeting the promoters had the choice between adopting an open transmission rule, which would allow any type of transmission to run in the modified class, or a "rule clarification," which limited the type of transmission in the modified class to OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) or *1151 stock type parts. By a vote of 15-4, the promoters adopted the clarification to Wissota's transmission rule for the modified class.

The plaintiffs claim that this "rule clarification" was purposefully designed to "outlaw" their transmissions for use within Wissota sanctioned modified class races. Plaintiffs have brought suit against the defendants claiming intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and defamation and slander.

Plaintiffs' primary business is developing and selling transmissions to amateur race car drivers. Approximately 25% of the plaintiffs' business is derived from transmission sales to Wissota drivers. About one third of Wissota drivers use the plaintiffs' transmissions. The majority of plaintiffs' business, however, comes from sales to International Motor Contest Association (IMCA) drivers. The IMCA is the largest sanctioning body for amateur race car drivers in the United States with approximately 6,000 modified class drivers and 160-170 racetracks. Plaintiffs allege that the "rule clarification" will dilute their business since Wissota drivers will sell off their Ernie transmissions to IMCA drivers at various trade shows. Thus, plaintiffs argue, not only will they lose the direct sales to Wissota drivers but also the sales to IMCA drivers. The effect of these lost sales, according to plaintiffs, will be the loss of their business goodwill and entire business as it is currently deeply in debt for reasons unrelated to the Wissota "rule clarification."

Although the plaintiffs are unsure why Wissota would want to put them out of business, they theorize that they have incurred the resentment of the association by challenging its rules in the past. As theorized by the plaintiffs, this resentment led to the adoption of a rule which they claim, is unenforceable on its face since no transmission could comply. Wissota counters by arguing that the intent of the rule clarification was twofold: first, to return to the original intent of the modified class by using OEM or stock type transmissions which can be purchased fairly cheaply; and second, to bring Wissota's rules in line with IMCA rules to foster cross-over drivers. The irony of defendants' argument is that evidence has been presented which tends to support that the types of transmissions that are "legal" within the Wissota rules are not widely available. Additionally, the evidence supports that post "rule clarification" the Wissota and IMCA transmission rules differ significantly; the effect being that the plaintiffs' transmission can run in IMCA sponsored modified races but not in Wissota sponsored modified races.

Two additional facts should be noted. First, plaintiffs' early model transmission, the Ernie Slide I, had tacit approval to run in Wissota sponsored races. Wissota knew that the Ernie Slide I was being used by racers; and the Ernie Slide I was shown at Wissota sponsored technical shows. Second, plaintiffs have successfully sued the IMCA in the past on the same theories presented here under loosely similar circumstances.

While the court in Dataphase remarked that "in balancing the equities no single factor is determinative," it also stated that "the absence of a finding of irreparable injury is alone sufficient ground for vacating [denying] the preliminary injunction." Id. at n. 9. See also United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1183 (8th Cir.1998). Thus, "the threat of irreparable harm" is a threshold inquiry. Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, et. al., 811 F.2d 414, 418 (8th Cir.1987) (noting that "[t]he failure to show irreparable harm is, by itself, a sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunction"). See also Glenwood Bridge, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 940 F.2d 367, 371 (8th Cir. 1991) (quoting Gelco, "[t]he threshold inquiry is whether the movant has shown the threat of irreparable injury."). Consequently, the movant must show irreparable harm.

3a8082e126