Joe Gibbs Racing seeks contempt ruling against Gabehart, Spire Motorsports

NXTbets Pro | Published On: September 18, 2026

Contempt motion filed

Joe Gibbs Racing asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to hold Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports in civil contempt, saying they broke court restrictions tied to Gabehart’s move away from the team. The motion asks Judge Rodriguez to order Gabehart and Spire to appear and show cause, and it seeks costs and fees linked to the filing. JGR says the contempt request grows out of a broader lawsuit and countersuit that followed Gabehart’s departure after the previous season. The team says it fired Gabehart for cause and that decision triggered an 18-month non-compete. Gabehart and Spire dispute the enforceability of that restriction. JGR also says the earlier court orders included a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and it wants the court to enforce those limits now. The filing keeps the fight centered on what Gabehart could do after leaving and how far the restrictions reached once he moved to a rival organization.

Gabehart allegations grow

JGR says Gabehart crossed those limits by continuing to do work that looked like competition director duties. In the motion, the team alleges that he photographed sensitive information and synced proprietary material to a personal Google Drive folder labeled “Spire.” JGR also says he took part in competition meetings and discussed tire pressures, race setups and spring settings, all while the court had imposed limits on his role. The team points to exchanges about Spire cars and technical issues as examples of the conduct it says violated the restrictions. JGR frames the issue as a misuse of information, access and technical knowledge gained while he was at the team. It says the alleged conduct was aimed at helping Spire Motorsports and went beyond the line drawn by the court. The motion also says deposition testimony from Travis Peterson and Dax Gerringer supports the allegations. JGR uses that testimony to bolster its claim that the restrictions were ignored and that the prohibited conduct continued after the court stepped in. The filing presents a detailed picture of a post-departure dispute over competitive information and what a former executive can carry into a new job.

Trial and non-compete

JGR says it withdrew a similar allegation in July after concluding it did not have enough nonprivileged evidence to keep pressing that claim. The new contempt motion asks the court to respond to what the team calls violations of its orders. That keeps the focus on a broader legal fight that now includes the non-compete issue at the center of the case. Gabehart and Spire contest that reading and have challenged the restriction’s enforceability. The dispute now heads toward a federal jury trial in Charlotte, North Carolina. The filing adds another layer to a case that has already moved from a personnel dispute to a legal battle over competition rules, post-employment duties and the boundaries of a restrictive covenant.