Laura S. Taylor

How Judge Taylor rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Taylor no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 2025
Education
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, B.A., highest honors; Duke University, J.D.
Signed orders read
23

How Judge Taylor decides

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

What persuades

Specific corroborating evidence matters when a party relies on claimed advice or good-faith explanations; the absence of testimony from the lawyer who allegedly advised the debtor weakened that defense.

“The attorney handling the UD Action did not testify.”

Procedural preferences

A proposed Chapter 13 modification must account for accrued plan defaults and the statutory hardship-discharge and dismissal remedies rather than erase missed obligations retroactively.

“The Debtors are asking the Court to read into the Code an ability to grant a discharge after missing plan payments but without engaging in the hardship discharge analysis.”

Cautions

Claim components should be supported with itemized evidence; unspecified costs may be disallowed even when other portions of the claim are allowed.

“Summit sought recovery of $480 in unspecified costs. It has never documented these costs or explained them.”

Signed rulings

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

Royalty Investment Properties, LLC v. Cheralyn R. Preciado
21-90074 · 2023-09-05
Nondischargeability adversary claim (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs claim based on the UD Judgment is nondischargeable.”

In re Michael Simser
22-02617 · 2023-07-06
Objection to claim (debtor) Granted in part

“The Court, having reviewed the matter thoroughly, will now sustain the claim objection in part and overrule it in part as follows.”

In re Richard Alan Goethals and Robin Ellyn Goethals
18-07278 · 2023-03-30
Motion to confirm modified chapter 13 plan (debtors) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the Debtors' motion to approve and confirm the New Plan.”

In re Raul Silva
19-04900 · 2022-11-10
Motion for sanctions for discharge violation (debtor) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to impose sanctions on Creditors.”

Day v. Silverthorn
20-90050 · 2021-11-01
Nondischargeability adversary claim (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court finds that the Probate Judgment was discharged in Michael's bankruptcy case.”

Trilliant Networks (Canada) Inc. v. Ingenu Inc. and Alvaro Gazzolo
20-90108 · 2021-08-19
Motions to dismiss (Trilliant Networks (Canada) Inc.) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants Trilliant's motion to dismiss lngenu's Fifth Cause of Action for intentional interference with prospective economic relations.”

Ingrid Frances Guido v. Strategic Funding Source, Inc. et al.
21-90004 · 2021-06-01
Automatic stay adversary claim (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court determines that the facts as pled in the initial complaint do not support a determination of a violation of the automatic stay as a matter of law.”

Kyvan Nguyen v. Andy Chan Wa Wong and Shirley Teng Wong
20-90027 · 2021-05-19
Nondischargeability adversary claim (plaintiff) Denied

“Having considered all of the evidence presented at trial and the arguments made, the Court finds for the Defendant on the cause of action under section 523(a)(2)(A).”

In re NSHE CA Bulls, LLC
19-07519 · 2020-12-15
Motion for attorneys fees (debtor) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above the Court denies Debtor's Motion.”

In re Lisa A. Stefani
18-00395 · 2019-02-15
Motion for sanctions for stay violation (debtor) Granted

“The Court requires payment to Debtor of $17,000.00 in 60 days in order to allow the Firm to address any liquidity issues.”

Stadtmueller v. Sarkisian et al.
18-90039 · 2018-12-04
Motion to abstain (defendants) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies the Motion to Abstain at this point and denies the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and grants summary judgment on these legal issues to the Trustee. The Court also denies the Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment on the intent and damages issues.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Denied
Summary judgment (Chapter 7 trustee) Granted in part
Pacific Imperial Railroad, Inc. v. Charles E. Fletcher
17-90161 · 2018-07-23
Adversary claim to determine leasehold interest (Pacific Imperial Railroad, Inc.) Denied

“PIR had the burden of proof here; it failed to meet it in the main.”

A historical record

Judge Taylor no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.