The Salem franchisees and BAM mediated on October 20 and did not settle. BAM’s motion to send the case to private arbitration has sat unanswered since May 27.
In May, BAM asked the court to make the Salem franchisees mediate and then arbitrate, and Ammon McNeff verified that no mediation had been attempted. The mediation has now been held, without any order, and it failed. What is left is the arbitration: whether the case, the racketeering count the plaintiffs want to add, and the people they want to add as defendants, Ammon McNeff, Brandon Best, Josh Johnson and Matthew McNeff among them, are heard in open court or in private. The plaintiffs’ status report of November 3 proposes November 16 for the first opposition and for BAM’s response to the motion to amend, and asks BAM to agree.
PRIMARY SOURCEPlaintiffs’ Status Report Following Mediation, filed November 3, 2026 in BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., Utah Business and Chancery Court No. 260200029, reproduced below and linked in full, read with BAM’s verified motion of May 27 and the court’s index of October 20 (as reported).
CONFIRMEDThe docket through October 20 shows the plaintiffs’ notice of mediation at row 21, dated September 8, a second lawyer for the plaintiffs on October 20, and no ruling, opposition, stipulation or order on either motion (as reported). Section 17 of the franchise agreement sets a face-to-face meeting, then “non-binding mediation through the American Arbitration Association,” then binding arbitration before the AAA in Utah County.
AS STATEDThe hold on briefing, the proposed dates and the request that BAM stipulate are the plaintiffs’ account, and the report cites no stipulation or order. BAM had not answered the proposal when the report was filed.
INFERENCEWith the mediation held and failed, the half of BAM’s motion that asked to compel mediation has nothing left to compel. What remains is whether the case goes to arbitration, and the first opposition to that is now proposed for nearly six months after the motion was filed.
What the report says
Three numbered paragraphs and no request for relief. The plaintiffs call it the report promised in their September 8 notice and write, above the numbered paragraphs, “Nothing in this report asks the Court to act.”
The parties mediated on October 20, 2026, with Rick Rose of Utah ADR Services. The case did not settle.
Two motions remain pending: Defendant BAM Franchising, Inc.’s Verified Motion to Stay Case and Compel Mediation/Arbitration, filed May 27, 2026, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed August 14, 2026. Briefing on both motions was held while the parties attempted to settle. With the mediation concluded, Plaintiffs propose that briefing resume on the following schedule: (a) Plaintiffs’ opposition to BAM’s motion on or before November 16, 2026; (b) BAM’s response to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave on or before November 16, 2026; and (c) reply memoranda within the time provided by Rule 7 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs are providing this proposed schedule to BAM’s counsel concurrently with this filing and have asked whether BAM will join a stipulation. If BAM agrees, Plaintiffs will submit a stipulated motion and proposed order. If BAM proposes different dates, Plaintiffs will work with BAM toward an agreed schedule or will promptly advise the Court that the parties could not agree.
Three statements, one docket
What BAM verified in May, what BAM told two state regulators in September, what the plaintiffs reported in November, and what the court’s index showed on October 20, side by side. Paragraph 12 was verified before the September notice. The report is the first filing this site has read that says the mediation took place. Row 21 only noticed it, and nothing filed between October 20 and November 3 has been read here.
| BAM | The plaintiffs, November 3 | The docket, through October 20 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation | “The parties have not attempted a mediation of the claims and BAM has still not received the requested records to be exchanged prior thereto.”Verified motion, May 27, paragraph 12 | “The parties mediated on October 20, 2026, with Rick Rose of Utah ADR Services. The case did not settle.”Status report, paragraph 1 | Row 21, September 8: the plaintiffs’ notice of mediation and status report. Row 25, October 20: a second lawyer appears for the plaintiffs. |
| The ask | “compel the parties to first mediate in good faith, and if necessary thereafter, to engage in a binding arbitration with AAA.”Verified motion, May 27, relief requested and grounds | “Plaintiffs’ opposition to BAM’s motion on or before November 16, 2026.”Status report, paragraph 2 | No ruling, no opposing memorandum and no request to submit through row 26. |
| The pause | “BAM has moved to compel mediation/arbitration and the parties have agreed to a stay of litigation.”Disclosure amendment, Item 3, filed in Wisconsin September 8 and received in Minnesota September 10 | “Briefing on both motions was held while the parties attempted to settle.”Status report, paragraph 2 | No stipulation and no order through row 26. |
The two motions, in plain terms
Two motions, and nothing decided since the complaint was filed on March 27 (as reported).
BAM’s motion of May 27 asks the court to stay the case and compel arbitration. In plain terms: pause the lawsuit and send the dispute to a private arbitrator under Section 17 of the franchise agreement, which names binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in Utah County. An arbitration has no public file. Ammon McNeff verified the motion, signing that its facts were true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
The plaintiffs’ motion of August 14 asks leave to amend, that is, permission to file a new complaint. The proposed one names Brandon Best, Josh Johnson, Matthew McNeff, Ammon McNeff, Baker Bricks and Salem-Baker Bricks as defendants and pleads a Utah racketeering count (as reported; the count). The report’s caption already lists those parties. Until leave is granted, the only defendant is BAM Franchising, and the people the amended complaint names are not defendants.
The report proposes November 16 for both the plaintiffs’ opposition and BAM’s response, asks BAM to stipulate, and says the plaintiffs will tell the court if it does not. The docket through October 20 shows no brief or motion from BAM after May 27.
Where BAM has described the case since May is its September disclosure amendment, filed with Wisconsin and Minnesota (as reported; the amendment’s contact): “the parties have agreed to a stay of litigation” (as reported). That amendment was the first disclosure document to list the Salem case; the one Ammon McNeff swore to in April did not (as reported).
How it got here
The fair reading, and its limit. A status report is one side’s account, and no answer from BAM is on any record this site has read as of the publication of this update. Holding briefs while the parties try to settle is ordinary, needs no order, and reads as the pause BAM’s September amendment called an agreed stay; the report does not contradict that sentence. Mediation is confidential, and nothing about what was said or offered is in the report or known to this site. A failed mediation decides nothing about whether the dispute belongs in court or in arbitration; that question is still open. The limit: the mediation BAM asked the court to force was then held without an order; the first opposing brief in a case filed in March is now proposed for nearly six months after the motion it answers; and the company’s statement that the case is stayed by agreement went to regulators, not to the court. The right of reply is open to BAM, Ammon McNeff and the plaintiffs.
The record
The court’s date and the docket. The amended complaint. The eight steps. The racketeering count. The September amendment. Dentons and the amendment. The April certification. The disclosure, Item 3.
Sources. Plaintiffs’ Status Report Following Mediation, BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., No. 260200029 (Utah Bus. & Chancery Ct., filed Nov. 3, 2026), reproduced above and linked in full; BAM Franchising, Inc.’s Verified Motion to Stay and to Compel Mediation and Then Arbitration, May 27, 2026, its request for relief, its verification and paragraph 12; the franchise agreement, Exhibit B to the complaint, Section 17.A; BAM’s Franchise Disclosure Document amendment of September 2026, Item 3, as filed in Wisconsin and Minnesota; the court’s index of June 20 and October 20, 2026. The right of reply is open to everyone named here.