Janice Loyd
How Judge Loyd rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Loyd
Janice D. Loyd is a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. She began service on December 12, 2014.
Judge Loyd's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Loyd's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
- General Order 26-04: Voluminous Documents ↗
- General Order 26-03: Chapter 13 Guidelines ↗
- General Order 26-02: Guidelines for Electronic Case Filing ↗
- General Order 25-05: Subchapter V Policies and Procedures ↗
- General Order 24-05: Procedures in Chapter 12 Cases ↗
- General Order 24-02: Attorney Representation of Chapter 7 Debtors ↗
- General Order 23-01: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence ↗
How Judge Loyd decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A complete certified state-court record supported issue preclusion where the prior criminal conviction necessarily resolved the same intent elements under a higher burden of proof.
“Bertone has met that requirement by attaching as exhibits the complete criminal court file accompanied by a Certification of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.”
Evidence of changed financial circumstances, rather than counsel assertions alone, was necessary to support a proposed post-confirmation plan modification.
“However, Debtor has not introduced any proof that she no longer has the ability to make the payments required under the confirmed plan. All the Court has before it are Debtor’s counsel’s assertions in the Motion and Response.”
Procedural preferences
Boilerplate discovery objections and unparticularized privilege assertions did not suffice; withheld material required an express claim and enough description to assess the privilege.
“It is well settled that when a party withholds documents or any information based on the assertion of a privilege or work product immunity, ‘a party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.’”
In the Bloom adversary case, Loyd granted a time-limited stay while a parallel federal prosecution over the same conduct was pending, finding that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment interest outweighed the plaintiff’s need to proceed immediately at that stage.
“the Plaintiff's interest in proceeding without delay does not outweigh the defendant's interest in preserving his Fifth Amendment right, at least at this stage.”
Cautions
In a contested compromise, the court declined to count an expert’s assumed discount on secured debt as available estate value without a realistic basis for that concession.
“The Court finds discounting Kirkpatrick Bank's debt by $8 million is too speculative upon which to determine the fate of this proposed settlement.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Republic Bank & Trust's Amended Opposed Motion for Rule 2004 Examination [Doc. 27] by and through its corporate representative, Matthew Tye Parker, be and the same is hereby Granted as orally modified to request the production of records to be produced for the 2004 examination from January 1, 2016 to present. If the parties cannot agree upon a time and place for such examination the Court will do so upon being so advised.”
“*790For the reasons set forth above, Debtors’ Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 [Doc. 45] for the purpose of filing a reaffirmation agreement shall be and is hereby DENIED.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants, David A. Stewart and Terry P. Stewart [Doc. 21] insofar as it seeks dismissal of Claim for Relief V of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Objecting to Discharge [Doc. 14] based upon 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) is hereby Denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants, David A. Stewart and Terry P. Stewart [Doc. 21] insofar as it seeks dismissal of Claim for Relief VI of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Objecting to Discharge [Doc 14] based upon 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(C) is hereby Granted, and said Claim for Relief is hereby Dismissed with prejudice.”
“Further, Bruce is ordered to Answer the Interrogatories consistent with the Court’s findings as set forth herein within 10 days of the entry of this Order.”
“Accordingly, Bruce’s request to hold Waldrop’s Motion to Compel in abeyance is denied.”
The court resolved the governing limitations framework for a child-support claim but rescheduled the evidentiary hearing and did not adjudicate the claim objection.
“Accordingly, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2), the Motion to Dismiss filed by the United States Trustee is sustained, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider [Doc. 52] is hereby Granted insofar as it seeks to reinstate Plaintiff Farm Credit's Claim for Relief 1 (the liquidation of the claim of Farm Credit against the Debtor), and the Court's Opinion and Order on Motion to Dismiss entered on February 5, 2018 [Doc. 43] dismissing Claim 1 is hereby vacated and modified accordingly; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider [Doc. 52] is hereby Granted insofar as it seeks to reinstate Plaintiffs' Claim for Relief 9 for the substantive consolidation of the Debtor and Kretchmar Farms, and the Court's dismissal with prejudice of the claim of substantive consolidation pursuant to the Court's Opinion and Order on Motion to Dismiss entered on February 5, 2018 (Doc. 43] as against named defendant Kretchmar Farms, only, is hereby vacated. Except as specifically provided above, in all other respects the Opinion and Order on Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 43] remains in full force and effect.”
“For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of Danny and Debbie Kretehmar to Disquab ify Plaintiffs’ Counsel [Doc. 23] is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Quash [Doc 17] is Denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that CBM's Motion to Dismiss is hereby Granted , and this case is Dismissed with Prejudice to filing another petition under Title 11 for 180 days from this date.4”
“For the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s Order of November 1, 2016, upon consideration of the Amended Petition filed on April 6, 2016, against the above-named Debtor, Krishna Kumar Agrawal, aka Kris Agrawal, the Court finds that the requirements of Bankruptcy Code § 303 have been met, and an order for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 of the United States Code) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Four sampled matters were recorded as terminated and three remained pending in the index.
Draft for Judge Loyd with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Loyd, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Loyd's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace