Joe Gibbs Racing seeks to amend Spire, Gabehart lawsuit on grounds of 2026 success and job titles

Joe Gibbs Racing is asking the Western District of North Carolina and the Judge (Susan C. Rodriguez) overseeing the case to allow an amended refiling of its lawsuit against Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports.

This second proposed amended lawsuit now claims that the success Spire has obtained this season in the NASCAR Cup Series is a result of hiring Gabehart as ‘Chief Motorsports Officer,’ allegedly in violation of a non-compete provision, but also due to application of misappropriated trade secreted competition data from JGR.

The below italicized text has been taken from the proposed amended complaint:

“Spire’s decision to create a bespoke and intentionally misleading title and role for Gabehart and hire him to that role was not motivated by a desire to further its competitive interests fairly. Rather, Spire decision to employ Gabehart was motivated by a desire to compete unfairly against JGR and to intentionally harm JGR’s competitive interests through unlawful means. …

“This sudden improvement in Spire’s Cup Series performance of course comes on the heels of Gabehart misappropriating JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets and providing Spire the same or similar services he provided JGR in the last year.”

Spire has objectively taken a step forward in its competitive prowess this season, with Carson Hocevar currently sitting sixth in the standings with a win at Talladega after finishing 23rd in the final 2025 standings. Daniel Suarez has taken the Spire No. 7 car to 13th in the standings this season after Justin Haley finished 31st in the final 2025 standings.

It’s also objectively true that Spire, now with an ownership group that includes private equity powerhouse Group 1001, has invested in people, facilities and procedures … but JGR is claiming the hiring of Gabehart was unlawful. That is in addition to the claims for the first and second version of the complaints that showed the longtime crew chief turned competition director saved numerous files from JGR’s servers to his personal accounts and took 20 cell phone photographs of others.

The court, since then, has confirmed as a matter of fact, that Gabehart ‘misappropriated’ those files but also has stated that there is no evidence currently that these files were disseminated to Spire or any other entity before this was disclosed.

Thus, Spire has maintained its innocence all along, and has openly pondered why it was even named as a defendant in the second version of this legal complaint. Beyond the misappropriated files, JGR has accused Spire of ‘tortuous interference’ with Gabehart’s JGR contract, which the defendants say was voided by the former employer.

“Spire knowingly, intentionally, unjustifiably, and in bad faith induced Gabehart to breach his contract with JGR by (1) soliciting and hiring him to work for Spire, (2) requesting, encouraging, or otherwise inducing him to disclose or use Plaintiff’s trade secrets or confidential information, (3) allowing him to perform the same or similar services he provided JGR in the prior year to Spire and while using JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets, and on information belief, actively encouraging and inducing him to do so and (4) creating a role specifically designed to allow Gabehart to breach his noncompete obligations in a manner that makes it more difficult to detect the breach of his noncompete obligations.”

The original allegations, which alleges a ‘brazen scheme to steal JGR’s most sensitive information’ in violation of numerous state statutes have been detailed in the posts below:

Read Also:

Joe Gibbs Racing accuses Chris Gabehart of violating restraining order at Bristol

Chris Gabehart responds to JGR restraining order accusation

Denny Hamlin feels personally betrayed by Chris Gabehart amidst lawsuit

To bring forth this second amended complaint, the third overall, either the defendants had to agree to it or, if not, Judge Rodriguez would have to approve it. The former has not happened, so the latter is being requested by the plaintiffs.

“Shortly before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2026, Spire’s counsel informed JGR’s counsel that Spire did not consent to the proposed amendment. JGR’s counsel responded shortly thereafter to ask the basis for Spire’s opposition to confer on whether an agreement could be reached, obviating the need for Court intervention. On Monday May 4, 2026, Spire counsel responded that it would oppose the Motion to Amend on futility grounds. Despite the fact the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not amend any claims against Gabehart, his counsel also informed JGR’s counsel on May 4, 2026, that he opposed the amendment for the same reasons Spire offered.”

The only reason to deny a plaintiff an amended filing would be the start of fact discovery, which hasn’t happened yet, or if the ‘moving party has acted in bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.’ It is the latter two grounds that Spire and Gabehart appear to be pushing back on.

On those pushbacks, JGR asserts the following:

“JGR’s proposed Second Amended Complaint does not change the nature of the claims against either Defendant, change the underlying legal theories supporting those claims, or change the relief available to JGR. Rather, it merely adds additional facts to the tortious interference with contract claim against Spire included in the First Amended Complaint. Many of the new factual allegations JGR offers in its proposed Second Amended Complaint occurred after this litigation commenced. These facts are known to Defendants and many were raised through the preliminary injunction arguments. None of the additional allegations expand or change the relief sought in this litigation. Further, there is substantial overlap between the facts supporting the tortious interference with contract claim and the other claims—such as the history of contact between Gabehart and Spire in the time period prior to his employment with Spire. Consequently, Defendants cannot advance any opposition based on prejudice. Since Defendants will suffer no prejudice from the amendment, the Court should grant the Motion to Amend.

…

JGR’s proposed amendment cannot be said to even approach the threshold of what the Fourth Circuit outlines as being offered in bad faith. JGR is simply seeking to ensure that its factual allegations reflect the nature of the claims and their overall severity, in line with the factual record as it develops. The amendment is also made in response to comments made by the Court in its Preliminary Injunction Order, issued on April 23, 2026.

…

“Finally, the Court should grant JGR’s Motion to Amend because the amendment is not futile. … Though Defendants have not specified any reasons they believe the amendment would be futile, JGR’s proposed Second Amended Complaint adequately alleges each element of the tortious interference with contract claim against Spire. Under North Carolina law, the elements of tortious interference with contract are: (1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third person which confers upon the plaintiff a contractual right against a third person; (2) the defendant knows of the contract; (3) the defendant intentionally induces the third person not to perform the contract; (4) and in doing so acts without justification; (5) resulting in actual damage to plaintiff.”