CONFIRMEDfederal docket and filed documents, BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah)
On July 6 the federal court reassigned the BAM Franchising suit against Benjamin Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, Victor Nguyen, and Bryan Mansell from Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero to District Judge David B. Barlow. The court’s stated reason: a pending motion for immediate injunctive relief makes the case ineligible, under court policy, for a magistrate judge to preside by consent. The pending motion is the parties’ own June 30 agreement, signed by counsel for every plaintiff and every defendant, to replace the June 9 state court restraining order with a preliminary injunction that drops the speech restrictions and states that nothing in it prohibits “engaging in investigative journalism, expressing opinions, criticism, satire, and/or commentary.” The order both sides asked for has been waiting since June 30 for a signature. The reassignment supplies a judge with the power to sign it.
The joint motion, filed June 30 and hosted here with its motion and proposed order, asks the court to convert the temporary restraining order that a Utah state court entered on June 9 into a federal preliminary injunction, “in order to permit the parties to engage in settlement discussions and/or mediation following an exchange of relevant documents and other information.” The defendants state in the same filing that they dispute the allegations and intend to assert counterclaims; the plaintiffs dispute the counterclaims.
The proposed injunction restrains conduct. Its seven operative clauses bar threats and violence; publishing personal addresses, phone numbers, or other doxxing information about BAM personnel and franchisees; entering, filming at, or approaching within 100 yards of BAM or franchisee stores, offices, and homes except through counsel or lawful process; impersonating franchisees, police, delivery services, or customers to gain access or recordings; touching or altering signage and property; blocking customers or vendors; and soliciting BAM employees, franchisees, or contractors “to leak confidential information, record inside stores without authorization, obtain phone numbers or private information, or create or participate in staged confrontations.” That last clause is a real limit on one newsgathering method, the recruitment of insiders, and it is the one restraint in the proposal that reaches beyond conduct that is already unlawful for anyone.
Then comes the paragraph that removes the speech bans. In full: “Subject to the foregoing, 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, and/or commentary, through any lawful means or methods they choose, including, but not limited to, YouTube, Tik Tok, Instagram, and podcasts, and/or other internet, television, radio, and social media platforms.” The June 9 state order restrained what the defendants could say; the substitute the plaintiffs themselves signed protects it. No bond is required of the plaintiffs “at this time,” the injunction runs until further order, and no party waives any claim or defense.
When the defendants removed the case to federal court on June 26, it was assigned to Magistrate Judge Romero as the presiding judge, a standard assignment in this district that becomes permanent only if every party consents. The consent forms were due July 20. By statute, a magistrate judge without that unanimous consent may decide most pretrial matters but not all of them: 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) allows a district judge to refer “any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief” and seven other listed motions. A preliminary injunction, even one every party has signed, is on the excepted list. The agreed order filed June 30 carries a signature line prepared for Judge Romero; the statute it ran into means the signature will have to be a district judge’s.
On July 6 the defendants returned their consent form, two weeks before the deadline, and the same day Judge Romero resolved the question the filing posed. Her docket text order states that under court policy the parties’ motion for immediate injunctive relief “renders this case ineligible for consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge,” and directs random reassignment to a district judge. The random draw produced Judge Barlow. Judge Romero remains on the case by automatic referral for non‑dispositive pretrial matters, and the district’s judicial settlement conference option, noticed on this docket on June 29, remains available. The week of silence on the joint motion is explained: the judge it was addressed to had no authority to grant it.
David Bruce Barlow was born in Provo, took his undergraduate degree summa cum laude from BYU and his law degree from Yale, and spent most of two decades in commercial litigation defense at Sidley Austin, where his Senate questionnaire lists defamation and First Amendment cases among those he litigated. He served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah from 2011 to 2014, a Republican nominated to that post by President Obama, was appointed to the bench by President Trump, and was confirmed 88 to 4 in December 2019 with a unanimous “well qualified” rating from the ABA. His published chambers guidance states that motions for temporary restraining orders are “generally decided on written briefing” and that the court will not consider ex parte requests, absent extraordinary circumstances, “without allowing an opportunity for the opposing party or counsel to respond.” The June 9 order this case began with was sought and entered ex parte in state court; under the standing practice of the courtroom the case now sits in, that procedural path is closed. (Federal Judicial Center biography.)
One more filing waits with the joint motion. Gregory C. Belmont, a New York nonparty who follows the case and moved on June 29 to intervene, arguing that the state order’s restraints chilled speakers and readers beyond the named defendants, narrowed his request on July 1 after the parties filed their agreement (hosted copy). He states he “does not seek to delay, and does not object to, immediate entry” of the agreed injunction. He asks for two residual things after it enters: that the speech-protective paragraph be clarified to cover “Defendants or any nonparty,” so that people outside the case do not misread the order as restraining them, and a notice mechanism giving him a chance to be heard if, in his words, “similar speech-restrictive relief” is sought again, citing the plaintiffs’ “prior request for emergency ex parte speech-restrictive relief without materially addressing the obvious and substantial First Amendment implications.” If the court finds none of that necessary, he asks that his papers be treated as an amicus memorandum.
The docket in front of Judge Barlow, then, holds an injunction every party wants entered, a nonparty who agrees it should enter immediately, extension motions for the answers that no one opposes, and a mediation both sides have committed to. What it does not hold is any pending request to restrain anyone’s speech. Reassignment under the district’s consent policy is routine case administration, not a ruling, and it signals nothing about how the new judge will decide anything: he may enter the agreed order as written, modify it, set a hearing, or ask whether the June 9 order still has legal effect at all, a question Belmont’s original motion raised. The conduct restraints in the proposal are ones the defendants agreed to. The underlying suit’s claims are unadjudicated, the defendants dispute them and intend counterclaims, and every person named is presumed innocent.
Source: the federal docket, BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider et al., No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah), entries 6, 10, 11, 12, and the docket text entries 15 through 17 of July 6, 2026; hosted copies of the joint motion (ECF 11), the proposed preliminary injunction (ECF 11-1), and the nonparty notice (ECF 12). Statute: 28 U.S.C. § 636. Judge: D. Utah chambers page; Federal Judicial Center; Senate confirmation vote of December 4, 2019 (88 to 4, Senate roll call records). For the June 9 order and its history, see the takedown; for the wider record, the Enterprise.
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