Yesterday every party to BAM Franchising v. Schneider told the court in one filing that the plaintiffs were “meeting with the mediator today” over an offer from the defendants, and asked for more time on the defense’s anti-SLAPP motion. This morning Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero granted it in one page. The order is below. What it does, and what it does not do, fits on the same page.
CONFIRMEDentered September 2 in BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, D. Utah 2:26-cv-00593: an order that “the deadline to file a special motion for expedited relief is extended to September 18, 2026”CONFIRMEDthe order’s caption still names Bryan Mansell as a defendant; the August 27 joint motion to dismiss him, and to enter a permanent injunction against him, has no order on the docketCONFIRMEDthe same day was the deadline for Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, and Victor Nguyen to respond to the complaint, set by the court’s August 3 order; the docket shows no response and no motion to move that date alongside this order
One sentence, and it moves the one deadline in this case that belongs to the suit itself. A “special motion for expedited relief” is the dismissal vehicle of Utah’s anti-SLAPP act, the motion that would ask whether this lawsuit targets protected speech, with the defense’s fees riding on the answer. Yesterday’s update walked through the clock; today the court set it. This is the second time it has: an August 6 order moved the same deadline to September 7 on the first stipulation, and this one moves it to September 18 on the second. Both times the plaintiffs signed the request. Both times the court adopted their stated reason as good cause. The stated reason yesterday was the mediation.
The timing is the substance. The motion said the plaintiffs were “meeting with the mediator today (September 1, 2026) to consider and respond to an offer from the remaining defendants.” The order arrived the next morning. Whatever happened in that room, the paper that followed it was not a dismissal and not a withdrawal. It was the court keeping the defense’s motion alive for sixteen more days on a schedule both sides wrote, which is what a case looks like when the parties are still talking and the plaintiff has not yet answered the offer on the table.
It does not end anything. The caption Judge Romero signed still lists four defendants, Bryan Mansell among them. The joint motion that would dismiss Mansell with prejudice and enter a permanent injunction against him was filed August 27, corrected by the clerk the next day, and has sat six days without a signature from Judge David Barlow, whose order it must be. The settlement BAM announced on August 19 is, on the docket, still a pending motion.
And it does not touch the other clock. The court’s August 3 order set September 2 as the day Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, and Nguyen must respond to the complaint. That is today. Nothing on the docket alongside this order answers the complaint, moves to dismiss it, or asks to move the date, after two agreed extensions that did. The anti-SLAPP deadline and the answer deadline have been extended together twice; this time only one of them was.
| Date | What the record says |
|---|---|
| Aug 19 | BAM announces the Mansell settlement. |
| Aug 27 | Joint motion to dismiss Mansell and enter a permanent injunction against him. Awaits Judge Barlow. |
| Sept 1 | All parties: the plaintiffs are meeting the mediator today over an offer from the remaining defendants. |
| Sept 2 | This order: anti-SLAPP motion due September 18. Also the response deadline for Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, and Nguyen. |
| Sept 18 | The special motion for expedited relief is due, unless the parties move it a third time or the case ends first. |
The fair reading, and its limit. A magistrate judge granting an unopposed extension is the most routine order a federal docket carries, and its speed reflects the parties’ agreement, not any view of the merits. The order says nothing about what happened at the mediation, and mediation is confidential; an extension is consistent with talks that are continuing and with talks that have ended. The response deadline and this order share a date, and a filing made later in the day would post after it. The special motion remains unfiled, every allegation in the case remains an allegation, and the narrow facts here are the order’s own: its date, its one sentence, and the caption it still carries.
Sources. The order, BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), Dkt. 36, entered September 2, 2026, hosted above; the docket’s August 3 order setting the September 2 response deadline, its August 6 order on the first anti-SLAPP extension, and its August 28 clerk modification, each quoted from the docket text; the stipulated and joint motion of September 1, hosted there; the joint motion on the Mansell claims; the settlement announcement; and the reassignment that put Judge Barlow on the case with Judge Romero on referral.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; every claim in the lawsuit remains an allegation, and all parties are presumed to act in good faith. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam