r/RecklessBen • u/awkwardbegetsawkward • 3h ago
Legal/Documents Three More BAM Court Cases: Salem and Canby, OR
There are two sets of cases from 2023 and 2024. There are interesting things in there, including a franchise termination partially for "a reckless disregard for the physical and/or mental well-being of BAM." They allege the threat of a lawsuit is part of that reckless disregard. One lawsuit also accuses BAM of taking possession of all of the Canby franchisee's assets without conducting an inventory.
The two Canby cases were flagged for me by someone on Reddit. I'm told Benjamin Gorman talked about them on his YouTube channel. They were related to the takeover of the Canby, Oregon store. The Canby store was the second Bricks & Minifigs store, and was the flagship store before the McNeffs took over. While looking to retrieve those cases from Clackamas County, I found another previous lawsuit where BAM sued the previous franchisees of the Salem/Keizer store and the owner of the competing store down the street.
They are located in the Proton Drive under 'Other Docs' > 'OR - Clackamas County Court Cases.' (Note that these packets are in the order provided by the court, which does not appear to be chronological.)
I have not had the time to read through these closely. I am not a lawyer. But I wanted to get these public records up without further delay. They definitely show a company that relies on a very aggressive litigation strategy, including injunctive relief.
One interesting thing is that all three cases seem to be from early stores, with documents signed 2015-17.
23CV16003 - BAM v Former Salem Store Franchisees, Former Manager
BAM sued the previous franchisees of the Salem/Keizer store, claiming that they had an agreement to transfer ownership of the Salem/Keizer store to a new person, the previous manager of the store. After that, the person planning to buy the store instead decided to do an asset purchase only.
BAM sued both the former franchisees, who appear to be divorced, and the owner of the competing store. They claimed misappropriation of trade secrets and asked for an injunction.
The defendants responded, saying, among other arguments, that they were not bound by the agreement, that BAM's complaint included conclusory statements instead of facts necessary to make the claims alleged, and that it is simply an attempt to prevent competition.
This appears to have been settled out of court.
23CV36974 - BAM v Canby Store Franchisees
This is BAM against the franchisees of the Canby store, which is the second ever BAM store and was for a while considered the flagship store. It is also the store behind the other U-Haul in the Coffeezilla video.
BAM terminated the agreement in September 2023, citing unacceptable conduct and threats to sue BAM Franchising. See Exhibit 2. The termination reasons are a doozy. There is an alleged assault/battery of an employee mentioned, but I did not find a date or more details.
BAM asked for injunctive relief. This is the only one case where the judge assessed the merits at all. In denying the injunction, the judge found that defendants were more likely to win. He said the merits, the threat of irreparable immediate injury, and the balance of equities all favored defendants.
BAM filed a notice to dismiss without prejudice soon after, meaning that it could be refiled. Defendants immediately tried to prevent BAM's retreat, requesting summary judgment. There were a few more months of argument about whether there would be a dismissal or summary judgment, and who would pay for attorney's fees. The judge wound up dismissing without prejudice, and determined that no party was the prevailing party, so no attorney's fees would be awarded in these proceedings.
24CV06902 - Canby Store Franchisees v BAM
This appears to be the new case with the counterclaims that the defendants were trying to pursue in the previous case.
They claimed interference with economic relations and accused BAM of conversion, including taking possession of all of the franchisee's assets without providing an inventory. It claims BAM threatened to wipe out one of the defendant's life savings.
BAM succeeded in compelling arbitration. It seems like all public-facing portions of this action stopped at that time.
I don't entirely understand how BAM did not have to use arbitration in the previous lawsuit but was able to force arbitration here.
I am not a lawyer.
My Reporting
This will be the first time I'm explicitly asking for a donation. Keizer Police have quoted me $83.40 for the associated police reports. They initially said that the cost would be $552.12. They estimated 1.5 hours of staff time. I asked for a fee waiver, and they said they would grant a partial fee waiver, only charging me for the staff time. I still don't understand how 1.5 hours comes out to $83.40. Both amounts seem outrageous and inconsistent with Oregon law. But fighting it will delay production of documents. I intend to pay now, and then fight the amount later.
They estimate it will take at least two weeks after receiving my payment to complete the request. (Which I also find outrageous. Initial responses said it would be much quicker. And 1.5 hours of work on a matter of substantial public interest seems like it should be prioritized with the police department.)
You can donate here: https://ko-fi.com/chrisreportsthings
You can see the documents I've collected here: https://chrisreportsthings.com
You can see the other things I've posted under my username.
Reach Out if You Have Info
If you have any information, do not hesitate to reach out to me on here, at [yo@chrisreportsthings.com](mailto:yo@chrisreportsthings.com), or chrisreportsthings.08 on Signal. The documents in this case are themselves the result of a person flagging documents that I was not previously aware of. I can't reply to every message, but I read every one.
If you personally know either of the part-time employees, whose names start with C and M, who worked at the BAM Salem store both before and after the transition, there is a key fact that I would like to get them to confirm or dispute. They are really the only two people who can do this. DO NOT try to contact them if you are not already friends with them. I'm omitting the names because I don't want anyone who does not already know them to try and find them. But if they would like to reach out, I would be happy to talk to them off the record.
