M. James Lorenz
How Judge Lorenz rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Lorenz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Cautions
For preliminary class-settlement approval, Lorenz expects objection procedures and fee-application timing to preserve class members' opportunity to respond, and he will not approve provisions allowing later settlement changes without court oversight.
“Finally, the Court is not inclined to approve a settlement which provides for amendment or modification without court approval.”
Counsel disqualification is not automatic outside concurrent adverse representation; he balances the integrity of the proceedings against choice of counsel, replacement costs, and possible tactical abuse.
“Aside from this exception, the courts use a ‘balancing-of-interests test’ which weighs ‘the combined effects of a party's right to counsel of choice, an attorney's interest in representing a client, the financial burden on a client of replacing disqualified counsel and any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification proceeding,’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Chase's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Further, it is ORDERED that: 1. Chase's motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action and Loeza's waiting time penalty claim, and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Chase's motion is otherwise DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED granting plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice subject to the condition that should plaintiff seeks to amend his state court complaint to name defendant City of Escondido, or refile an action against defendant under the same or substantially similar facts or law, plaintiff shall bear defendant's costs from this suit for discovery, motion practice, or any other items, which defendant is able to demonstrate cannot be used in the second or future litigation.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant's counterclaim. ... (1) GRANTS the motion with respect to the abuse-of-process cause of action, and accordingly, DISMISSES it from this case; and (2) DENIES the motion with respect to the slander-of-title cause of action.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss, and DENIES Defendants' motion to strike. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint only as to the false-imprisonment claim, he may do so by May 2, 2013.”
“Defendants fail to show that the paragraphs identified in the SAC are either immaterial or impertinent. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to strike.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.”
“IT IS ORDERED defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's claim for violation of his right of access to the courts is dismissed without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's claim for failure to protect is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Goff, Homer and Cortez; 3. Plaintiff's due process claim is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may file an amended complaint in conformity with this Order on or before March 29, 2010.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss in its' entirety. ... The Court finds that the deficiencies in the initial complaint could be cured by amendment. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for leave to amend its initial complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than 14 days after the date this order is issued.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend.”
“Defendant FCA's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 5) is GRANTED with respect to the negligent misrepresentation claim and DENIED in all other respects. ... Because amendment of the negligent misrepresentation claim does not seem possible under the economic loss rule and because Plaintiffs have not argued that they can amend this claim, leave to amend is denied as futile.”
“Defendant Stericycle’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 6) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including their motion to exclude expert evidence, is denied.”
“To the extent Defendants move to exclude Mr. Scherer’s and Dr. Raiff’s expert opinions in an effort to secure summary judgment, their motion is denied as moot. In the alternative, the motion to exclude is denied because the expert opinions at issue have since been revised.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Dr. Tran’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 151.5 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 312 days (N = 1).
Judge Lorenz's post-senior-status docket includes a high-volume, fast-settling group of ADA Title III accessibility cases. His earlier active-era merits docket also included FLSA and wage-hour class actions, Section 1983 civil-rights cases, mortgage and foreclosure disputes, and Federal Tort Claims Act matters. This describes caseload composition, not motion outcomes.
Draft for Judge Lorenz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lorenz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lorenz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace