Twenty days after Matt McNeff told franchisees “there will be sanctions,” BAM agreed to let Reckless Ben’s lawyers add Josh Johnson’s recorded words and asked to restart its own deadline.
BAM has two deadlines coming in its federal case against Reckless Ben: October 15 to oppose the defense’s request to add 27 quotations from Josh Johnson, a plaintiff who verified BAM’s complaint, and October 16 to answer the anti-SLAPP motion itself. On October 9 BAM and the defense filed a joint motion that would remove both. It asks the court to order that the request “shall be granted.” BAM’s 28 days to answer would start over when the defense files a supplemental memorandum, which would move BAM’s answer back at least three weeks, and six or more if the defense uses the 21 days it is given. Between its last filing on August 27 and this joint motion, the docket shows nothing filed by BAM. On September 19 Matt McNeff told franchisees BAM would file an order to show cause “On Monday” and that “there will be sanctions.” Neither is on the docket. No judge has signed the order.
PRIMARY SOURCEBAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593, District of Utah: docket entry 48, the “Joint Motion and Stipulation Regarding (1) Defendants’ Motion to Supplement Their UPEPA Motion with New Evidence and (2) Corresponding Briefing Schedule,” four pages, and entry 48-1, the proposed order, both filed October 9, 2026. Both are in the record below.
CONFIRMEDThe docket as read the afternoon of October 9: 48 numbered entries; no order on the stipulation; no order to show cause and no motion for sanctions; nothing filed by the plaintiffs between entry 33, on August 27, and entry 48. The court’s local rule 7-1: 14 days to respond to a motion of this kind, 28 to a motion under Rule 12(b).
UNRESOLVEDwhether the court signs the order as proposed; when the supplemental memorandum is filed; what BAM says about Johnson’s statements when it answers
What BAM agreed to let the defense add
The evidence is Josh Johnson’s own voice. He is a plaintiff in this case and, with Ammon McNeff, one of the two men who verified BAM’s complaint. That complaint calls it a lie that Ammon McNeff “took the LEGOs” (September 26).
On a recorded call with Matty AppleSeed, Johnson said: “Ammon didn’t want to give Bryan his LEGOs back.” On October 1 the defense asked the court for leave to put 27 quotations from the call, that line among them, into its anti-SLAPP motion. The recordings went to the clerk on a drive (October 1).
BAM could have opposed. The court’s local rule gave it 14 days, to October 15. On October 9 its lawyers signed this instead.
The same page says the stipulation is no admission about the “veracity, relevance, or admissibility” of the evidence. BAM can still contest Johnson’s statements when it answers. What it will not do is argue that they should stay out of the motion.
The joint motion is made in the name of every plaintiff and signed for them by Wm. Kelly Nash of Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar. His clients in this case include Johnson, whose words would be added, and Ammon McNeff, whom that line is about.
Two deadlines, one paper
BAM’s answer to the anti-SLAPP motion is due October 16, 28 days after the motion. District Judge David Barlow has that motion. The docket lists it three ways: to dismiss, for attorney fees and to expedite. If the judge dismisses any part of BAM’s complaint, the motion argues, Utah’s anti-SLAPP act makes a fee award against BAM mandatory (September 18).
The joint motion went in with seven days left on that clock and six on the other.
Under the third term BAM’s 28 days begin again on the day the defense files its supplemental memorandum. The earliest that can be is the day the order is signed. So if the court signs, BAM’s answer cannot fall due before November 6, three weeks after the date it would replace. If the defense takes the 21 days it is given, the date is November 27 or later.
The proposed order has a signature line for Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero. It is unsigned.
What McNeff told franchisees
On September 19, the day after the anti-SLAPP motion was filed, Matt McNeff spoke to franchisees by video. He is BAM’s chief operations officer and one of the plaintiffs (September 20).
“On Monday we will be filing an order to show cause.”
He said the order would bring Reckless Ben and his team before the judge, and that “there will be sanctions.”
He said Reckless Ben’s lawyers had been “threatening to file this anti-SLAPP motion,” and that BAM’s legal team felt “very confident and comfortable that we’ll be able to overcome that if they do file that.” The motion had been on the docket since the day before, and its certificate of service shows it went to BAM’s lawyers that day.
That Monday was September 21. BAM filed nothing (September 22).
Twenty days after the video the docket shows no order to show cause and no motion for sanctions. Between August 27 and this joint motion it shows nothing filed by the plaintiffs. The joint motion asks the court to grant the defense’s request and to move BAM’s own deadline.
The fair reading, and its limit. Lawyers stipulate to supplements and briefing schedules routinely. This one says it is no “admission by any party regarding the veracity, relevance, or admissibility” of the evidence and waives no rights under the anti-SLAPP act, and BAM can still contest Johnson’s statements when it answers. Answering once, with all of the evidence in, is efficient for both sides; the defense signed it too and gets 21 days. BAM’s lawyers also signed the defense’s own request for more time on September 1. A statement to franchisees is not a promise to a court, and BAM may still seek an order to show cause. What the stipulation does not change is the order of events: the video on September 19, nothing on the Monday, and a joint motion 20 days later that asks for BAM’s own deadline to start over. The right of reply is open to BAM and to its counsel.
The record
The joint motion and stipulation, docket entry 48, October 9. The proposed order, docket entry 48-1. The docket on CourtListener. The court’s local rules. October 1: the motion to supplement and Josh Johnson’s 27 quotations. September 26: the complaint Johnson verified, beside his words. September 22: Monday came and went. September 20: McNeff’s video. September 18: the anti-SLAPP motion.
Sources. BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah): docket entry 48, Joint Motion and Stipulation Regarding (1) Defendants’ Motion to Supplement Their UPEPA Motion with New Evidence and (2) Corresponding Briefing Schedule, filed October 9, 2026, four pages, quoted verbatim, and docket entry 48-1, the proposed order, two pages. The docket as read on CourtListener the afternoon of October 9, 2026. Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, effective December 1, 2025, rule 7-1(a)(4). This site’s reporting of September 18, 20, 22 and 26 and October 1, linked above. Everyone named here is presumed to have acted lawfully.