CONFIRMED · joint stipulation + federal docket
Two things changed the posture of the racketeering suit at once. First, on June 26, 2026 the defendants removed it from Utah’s Fourth District Court to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, where it now sits as No. 2:26-cv-00593-CMR. The original state case, 260402353 before Judge Tony F. Graf Jr., is stayed by the removal.
Second, and more important for anyone following the reporting: the original ex parte order, the one whose content-removal terms told Schneider to take videos down, is being dissolved. In a joint stipulation, both sides asked the court to modify the restraining order into a conduct-only preliminary injunction. The proposed order carves the journalism out expressly: “nothing in this order shall prohibit Defendants from discussing Plaintiffs, commenting on this litigation, publishing court filings, engaging in investigative journalism, expressing opinions, criticism, satire.” No bond was required.
What remains restrained is conduct, not speech: threats of violence, doxxing personal information, trespassing or approaching within 100 yards of the stores and homes, impersonation, and physically interfering with the business. Those are the terms both sides agreed to. The content-removal piece, the part that read as a prior restraint, is the part being taken back out.
Around the same order, three more current facts belong on the record. The parties have agreed to mediate. Gregory C. Belmont moved to intervene on the audience and free-speech side; the plaintiffs opposed. And Schneider’s civil counsel of record is now Spencer Fane LLP (Young, Bowen, and Winn). Separately, in the state stalking case (261401094), the waiver hearing has been continued to August 12, 2026; an earlier report of a July 1 date is superseded.
The honest caveat. The copy of the modification order in the record is marked “proposed,” so it is most precise to describe the new terms as entered by the parties’ own stipulation rather than as a contested ruling a judge weighed and imposed. Either way the direction is the same: the speech restriction is being removed by agreement, not defended.
Source: BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, Notice of Removal and docket, D. Utah No. 2:26-cv-00593-CMR (removed June 26, 2026); Joint Motion and proposed Order Modifying Temporary Restraining Order and Entering Preliminary Injunction (state case 260402353); the Belmont motion to intervene and the plaintiffs’ opposition. Charges and claims remain unadjudicated.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; the criminal charges referenced are unadjudicated and every defendant is presumed innocent. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam