He said it Saturday, to every franchisee. Monday was September 21. As of Tuesday afternoon BAM has filed nothing since September 18: no order to show cause, no motion for one, nothing at all. The new entries are the court’s and Reckless Ben’s, and one of them moves that motion, which he told owners might never be filed, to Judge David Barlow’s own desk.
PRIMARY SOURCEthe federal docket in BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah), read the afternoon of September 22 and again on September 23: forty-two numbered entries, the last three entered by the clerk on September 22, none of them BAM’sPRIMARY SOURCEMcNeff’s September 19 video to franchisees, transcribed and published here on September 20CONFIRMEDdocket entry 40, entered September 22: the special motion is no longer referred to the magistrate judge, and “District Judge David Barlow will handle the motion”UNRESOLVEDwhether BAM files the order it described on some later day, and when it answers the motion
On Saturday, September 19, Matt McNeff, BAM’s Chief Operations Officer and a named plaintiff, sent every franchisee a video about the case. It had a date in it.
“On Monday we will be filing an order to show cause ... for Ben and his team to go before the judge and to tell him why they’ve been violating the preliminary injunction. And there will be sanctions and other ... remedies that come from that order.”
Monday was September 21.
September 18: three filings, all Reckless Ben’s. The special motion under Utah’s anti-SLAPP law (entry 37), the notice that its exhibits went in on a drive (entry 38), the errata with seven exhibits attached (entry 39). September 19: nothing. September 20: nothing. September 21, the Monday he named: one filing, and it is Reckless Ben’s, the eight video exhibits to his motion lodged on a flash drive (entry 42, entered the next day). September 22: two clerk entries. One, dated to the 18th, moves the motion to the district judge. The other is a notice of deficiency: the motion had been filed with only one of its three reliefs selected in the court’s system, so it showed as a “Motion to Expedite” alone, and the clerk added “Dismiss” and “Attorney Fees” to the entry and to its two companions. Nothing from BAM on any of the four days. An earlier version of this update, written from a docket mirror that showed forty entries, said the clerk entered one line on September 22.
Entry 40 records that the special motion is no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Cecilia Romero, and that “District Judge David Barlow will handle the motion.” The docket’s own line for its last known filing now reads September 22, the clerk’s notice.
Monday was September 21. BAM’s last filing is September 18.
In the same video McNeff told franchisees Reckless Ben’s lawyers had “been threatening to file this anti-SLAPP motion” and that BAM’s lawyers could beat it “if they do file that.” It had been filed the Friday before and hosted here since that night. An earlier version of this update said Thursday. The motion was filed on Friday, September 18. Now it sits with the district judge. A motion that can dismiss claims is one the district judge decides. On Tuesday the court moved it to him. If Judge Barlow strikes any part of BAM’s complaint, the statute makes BAM pay Reckless Ben’s fees for the motion. BAM has not yet answered it, and its answer is not yet due.
That makes two things McNeff told owners about the case on Saturday. The motion against BAM might not be filed; it already had been. An order against Reckless Ben would be filed Monday; it was not. What franchisees are told inside the house is not what the docket shows, and the docket is public.
He gave his franchisees a date. The docket gave them nothing.
The injunction McNeff said Reckless Ben had been violating is one BAM signed. Its paragraph 2 protects commenting on the litigation, publishing court filings, journalism, satire and commentary. An order to show cause has to rest on conduct the injunction restrains, not on anything Schneider said or posted. This site said on Sunday that a no-show would be reportable. It is.
The fair counterpoint. A date given to franchisees is not a court deadline. BAM can file the order it described on any later day, or never. Public docket mirrors can trail the court’s own system by hours. BAM’s response to the motion is not yet due under the court’s rules. Nothing here says the order will not come; it says that as of Tuesday afternoon it had not, and that the only motion pending is the one against BAM, now with the judge. BAM’s right of reply is open.
Sources. The federal docket in BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah), as mirrored from PACER by the RECAP Archive and read on the afternoon of September 22, 2026: entries 37, 38 and 39 (September 18), entry 40 (dated September 18, entered September 22), entry 42 (Reckless Ben’s exhibits, dated September 21, entered September 22) and entry 41 (the clerk’s notice of deficiency, September 22); read again September 23. Matthew McNeff’s September 19 video to BAM franchisees, transcribed and published here September 20. The special motion, hosted here, and the preliminary injunction, ECF 21. BAM’s right of reply is open to everyone named here.