Martin R. Barash

How Judge Barash rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
Position
bankruptcy
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Commissioned
2015-03-26
Education
Princeton University (A.B., magna cum laude, 1989); UCLA School of Law (J.D., 1992; editor and business manager, UCLA Law Review)
Signed orders read
10

How Judge Barash decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Stay relief followed where extended marketing produced no viable capital or sale transaction and the prospect of timely reorganization had become remote.

“the prospects of a feasible reorganization in a reasonable amount of time are dim—at best.”

Equitable remand turned on the state-centered character of the civil dispute and its limited effect on estate administration.

“the Civil Action is most appropriately adjudicated in the Superior Court and should be remanded on equitable grounds.”

Procedural preferences

A complaint must allege facts supporting a facially plausible claim rather than labels or a formulaic recital.

“A pleading that offers only labels, conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient.”

The court may resolve the ripe portion of a stay dispute while expressly reserving distinct requested relief for later conditions and briefing.

“The Court reserves judgment on whether, and under what conditions, it should grant relief from stay to permit Smart Capital to assert counterclaims against Debtor in the State Court Action.”

Cautions

Reconsideration is not a vehicle for rearguing the merits or expressing dissatisfaction with the result.

“merely express unhappiness with the outcome, neither of which are a basis for reconsideration.”

A party seeking to strip a junior lien must carry its valuation burden with reliable evidence.

“The Court will enter a separate order denying the Motion.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Patisso v. Strong et al.
1:26-ap-01016 · 2026-06-17
Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, the Court will GRANT the Motions and DISMISS the FAC in its entirety without leave to amend.”

Motion for temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.”

HVI Cat Canyon, Inc. et al. v. Grewal et al.
9:25-ap-01038 · 2026-04-30
Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Granted

“The Civil Action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), for the equitable reasons described above.”

Arnone v. Gonzalez, Jr.
1:24-ap-01028 · 2026-04-30
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED.”

In re Hillcrest Ventures, LLC
1:25-bk-11472 · 2026-03-19
Motion for relief from stay (Royal Business Bank) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant the Motion under sections 362(d)(1) and (d)(2).”

Request to waive 14 day stay (Royal Business Bank) Denied

“the Court declines the Bank’s request for waiver of the 14-day stay provided in Rule 4001(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.”

First Data Merchant Services, LLC v. Hosseini
1:24-ap-01026 · 2026-03-03
Summary judgment (defendant debtor) Granted

“the Court will grant the Motion and enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the Complaint.”

Arnone v. Gonzalez, Jr.
1:24-ap-01028 · 2026-02-02
Summary judgment (defendant debtor) Granted

“the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims under §§ 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(2)(B), 523(a)(6), 727(a)(2)(A), 727(a)(4)(A), and 727(a)(7).”

Summary judgment (defendant debtor) Granted
Summary judgment (defendant debtor) Granted
Summary judgment (defendant debtor) Granted
Summary judgment (defendant debtor) Granted
Summary judgment (defendant debtor) Granted
In re Hawkeye Entertainment, LLC
1:23-bk-11501 · 2025-12-08
Summary judgment (debtor) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court will enter a separate order granting the MPSJ.”

In re Hawkeye Entertainment, LLC
1:23-bk-11501 · 2024-04-08
Motion to dismiss bankruptcy case (Smart Capital Investments I, LLC) Denied

“the Court will enter an order: (i) denying the Dismissal Motion”

Motion for relief from stay (Smart Capital Investments I, LLC) Denied

“denying the RFS Motion to the extent it seeks relief to proceed with an unlawful detainer action with respect to the Premises.”

Marshack v. Grewal et al.
9:21-ap-01025 · 2024-02-29
Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Denied

“The Motion is denied as to the First Cause of Action against Grewal for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.”

Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Denied

“The Motion is denied as the Second Cause of Action against Olivares for Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty”

Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Denied

“The Motion is denied as to Third and Fourth Causes of Action for Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers against Grewal.”

Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Denied
Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Granted in part

“The Motion is (i) granted as to the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action for Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers against Grewal to the extent the transfer occurred, or obligation was incurred, prior to July 25, 2017, and (ii) denied to the extent the transfer occurred after July 25, 2017.”

Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Granted in part
Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Denied

“The Motion is denied as to Seventh Cause of Action for Avoidance of Preferential Transfers against Grewal and Whalen.”

Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (defendants) Granted

“The Motion is granted with leave to amend as to the Eighth Cause of Action for Negligence / Legal Malpractice against Whalen.”

In re Player's Poker Club, Inc.
9:21-bk-10357 · 2022-02-04
Motion to reject lease (debtor) Granted

“the court concludes that the Motion should be granted, approving the rejection of the Hofer Lease and License nunc pro tunc to the date on which the Motion was filed, April 7, 2021.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

All ten sampled matters were terminated. Their durations ranged from 94 to 1,684 days, with a median of 102 days. The sample is descriptive and is not a complete caseload census.

Draft for Judge Barash with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barash, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Barash's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace