Michelle V. Larson
How Judge Larson rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Larson
Michelle V. Larson is a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Texas. Before taking the bench in 2020, she practiced insolvency and restructuring law in Dallas, including as a partner at Carrington Coleman.
Judge Larson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Larson, as published on the court's website (checked October 10, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Send two paper copies of Judge Larson’s listed pleadings and attachments within 48 hours after electronic filing.
“Two complete paper copies of the pleadings listed below, including all attachments thereto, should be sent within 48 hours of electronic filing to Judge Larson’s law clerk’s attention at 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1254, Dallas, TX 75242-1496.”
Motions
A contested stay-relief motion needing over 15 minutes for both sides requires a special setting from the courtroom deputy.
“Contested motions for relief from the automatic stay may NOT be set on this docket if the total time estimate for both sides' presentation to the court will exceed 15 minutes. Instead, you must contact the courtroom deputy for a special setting.”
Motions
Submit the court’s expedited-motion form BTXN146 when asking Judge Larson for an expedited setting.
“Parties requesting expedited settings must also submit the ‘expedited motion’ form on our court's website www.txnb.uscourts.gov (form BTXN146)”
Conferences
Judge Larson’s self-calendaring is limited to motions requiring no more than 30 minutes total hearing time.
“Counsel may utilize a self-calendaring procedure for the scheduling of motions requiring 30 minutes or less of court time (time estimate must include estimates for the entire hearing).”
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Larson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Detailed allegations identifying the actors, conduct, place, time, and mechanism of an alleged fraud can be sufficient to survive dismissal at the pleading stage.
“The Plaintiff provides the who, what, where, when, and how of this alleged fraudulent act by the Defendant, and, at this juncture, that is sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”
Procedural preferences
At summary judgment, an asserted factual dispute needs concrete evidentiary support rather than speculation about why a party acted.
“The argument that summary judgment should be denied because a promise must have existed to explain the Defendant’s actions, without any concrete evidence to support the existence of a promise, is insufficient for purposes of a motion for summary judgment.”
Cautions
A pleading defect that is legal rather than factual may lead to dismissal with prejudice when further amendment would be futile.
“Because the defects in the operative pleading are legal in nature and cannot be remedied through further amendment, the Court concludes that granting additional leave to amend would be futile.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“After consideration of the above-mentioned pleadings, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion to Dismiss.”
“Accordingly, Kinsale’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and all claims asserted by Roofing Designs in its Petition are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Counts IV and V of the Complaint without prejudice; it is further ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED IN PART with respect to Counts I, II, III, and VI of the Complaint;”
“ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Counts I and II of the Complaint; it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Counts III, IV, V, and VI;”
“Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein.”
“ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Correction Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 is GRANTED;”
“ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Clarify Non-Final Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the Court will amend the Final Judgment and add additional language that ‘no just reason for delay’ exists; it is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Clarify Non-Final Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is DENIED IN PART to the extent that the Defendants request the Final Judgment be deemed interlocutory;”
“ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 59 is GRANTED IN PART and the Court will amend its Original Rulings”
“ORDERED the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part with respect to all claims against Defendants Bluewave Computing, LLC; Direct Resources, LLC; Internet & Telephone, LLC; Paradigm Computer Consulting, Inc.; and Unknown Shareholders of Paradigm Computer Consulting, LLC. However, the Court grants the Trustee’s Alternative Motion for Leave to Amend pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Counts 1–5”
“The Movant’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will DENY the Motion to Convert and GRANT the Jackson 9019 Motion as more particularly explained herein.”
“Thus, the Court denies both the Contracts Stay Motion and the Computer Stay Motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The five early matters were terminated and supplied no express contested disposition. Jones remained pending and supplied one mixed dismissal outcome.
Draft for Judge Larson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Larson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Larson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace