CONFIRMEDfederal docket and filed orders, BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593-DBB-CMR (D. Utah)
The reassignment reported earlier today was not the end of the day’s docket. Within hours, the case received its first three federal orders, all signed July 6 by Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero, now handling pretrial matters by automatic referral: the deadline for all four defendants to respond to the complaint is August 3, 2026; Bryan Mansell’s Oregon lawyers are admitted; and the standard order that starts the scheduling clock has issued. The orders carry the case’s new caption, 2:26-cv-00593-DBB-CMR, the paper trail of the morning’s reassignment. The one motion left untouched is the one a magistrate judge cannot decide: the parties’ agreed preliminary injunction, which waits for District Judge David Barlow.
The court granted both unopposed extension motions in a single order (hosted copy): the deadline for Benjamin Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, Victor Nguyen, and Bryan Mansell “to respond to the Complaint” is extended “to and through August 3, 2026.” A response can be an answer or a motion attacking the complaint; the defendants have already stated in the June 30 joint motion that they dispute the allegations and intend to assert counterclaims. August 3 is the date the record is first due to hold the defense’s own account, in whatever form it takes.
The Order to Propose Schedule (hosted copy) is the district’s standard machinery, and it defines the case’s calendar from here. Within 14 days after the first answer is filed, the plaintiffs must send the defendants a draft Attorney Planning Meeting Report; the parties then hold their Rule 26(f) planning conference within 14 days after that; and within 35 days after the first answer they must jointly propose a schedule or ask for a scheduling conference. Discovery does not begin until the planning conference concludes. The order urges a template of fact discovery completed within six months of the first answer and dispositive motions within ten: measured from an August 3 answer, that would put fact discovery through roughly early February 2027 and dispositive motions by roughly June 2027, a default the parties can adjust and a mediation could moot. The order’s own footnote contemplates exactly that: where the parties are waiting on the resolution of a pending motion, the court “finds good cause to delay the issuance of a scheduling order until after the resolution of the motion.”
The day’s docket is a clean demonstration of the structure the reassignment created. On automatic referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Chief Magistrate Judge decides the case’s pretrial machinery, and she decided three pieces of it within hours: extensions, admissions, scheduling. Injunctive relief is on the statute’s excepted list, so the June 30 agreed preliminary injunction, the order that would formally replace the state court’s June 9 restraining order and its speech restrictions, sits with Judge Barlow alone. The judge who could not sign the parties’ one agreed order signed three others before the day ended.
A fair reading of the day: every one of these orders is routine, the extension was unopposed, the scheduling order is a form issued in most civil cases, and none of it reflects any view of the merits. What the afternoon establishes is narrower and still worth the record: the case is moving at the new court’s ordinary speed, the calendar architecture now exists, and the only substantive item pending anywhere in the case is an injunction that both sides asked for and that contains no restraint on anyone’s speech. The claims remain 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-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), entries 18, 19, 20 (all July 6, 2026); hosted copies of the Order to Propose Schedule (ECF 18) and the order extending the response deadline (ECF 20); pro hac vice grants at entry 19. Rules and statute: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; 28 U.S.C. § 636. Context: the reassignment, with hosted copies of the agreed injunction papers, and the takedown.
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