Michael M. Parker
How Judge Parker rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Parker
Michael M. Parker is Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Texas. Appointed to the court in 2021, he presides over cases in the San Antonio and Waco divisions.
Judge Parker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Parker, 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.
- Procedures for Presenting Exhibits ↗
- Procedure for Cash Collateral, DIP Financing, and Plan Budgets ↗
- Green Room Procedures for Zoom and Phone Attendees ↗
Key rules
Filing
Budgets attached to cash collateral or DIP financing motions must show dated income and expenses, covering at least 30 days after the petition for interim cash budgets and 13 weeks after the interim period for final budgets.
“for interim cash budgets, a time period spanning at least the thirty days after the petition date, and for final budgets, at least thirteen weeks after expiration of the interim budget.”
Conferences
Remote attendees who are not parties to an evidentiary hearing are moved to Judge Parker’s green room while that hearing proceeds.
“If the Court proceeds on an evidentiary hearing, all remote attendees who are not parties to that hearing will be moved back into the green room by the Courtroom Deputy”
Trial
Provide three paper copies of exhibits for adversary and contested hearings unless excused.
“Judge Parker requires each party offering exhibits at a hearing to provide three paper copies of exhibits (one for the judge, one for the courtroom deputy, and one for the witness stand).”
Trial
If there are fewer than five exhibits and each is under five pages, file them on the docket before the hearing instead of bringing paper copies.
“If a party has fewer than five exhibits and each exhibit is less than five pages, that party is excused from providing paper copies and may instead upload electronic exhibits on the docket.”
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 Parker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A secured creditor may establish embezzlement-based nondischargeability when state law gives it a property interest sufficient to support conversion and the debtor had no ownership interest in the appropriated property.
“The Court agrees with the majority courts’ analysis but will refine and refocus the rule: a creditor must have sufficient property interest in the allegedly embezzled property such that the creditor could bring a conversion claim.”
Procedural preferences
In the reviewed plan-confirmation dispute, silence by an impaired class did not count as acceptance of the plan.
“Impaired classes whose creditors fail to cast a vote do not ‘accept’ a plan”
Lien-avoidance requests must identify the exempt property affected rather than seek blanket relief against an asserted lien.
“Debtor must identify the exempt property on which it seeks lien avoidance. Section 522(f) operates to avoid liens placed on identified exempt property, not to avoid blanket liens in and of themselves.”
Cautions
Reconsideration is treated as extraordinary relief and is granted sparingly.
“they ‘call[] into question the correctness of a judgment’ and are thus extraordinary, only to be granted sparingly, and disfavored.”
The court imposed a $500 sanction on each attorney after they missed a hearing they were ordered to attend and offered no sufficient explanation.
“The Court will sanction the Attorneys $500 each for their violations.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court grants Kapitus’s § 523(a)(2)(A) and Virginia-law conversion claims, as well as Kapitus’s § 523(a)(4) claim only with respect to the debt due under the conversion claim, and denies all other relief.”
“The Court grants Kapitus’s claims under § 523(a)(4) with respect to the conversion debt and denies Kapitus’s claim under § 523(a)(4) with respect to any debts other than those arising under Kapitus’s conversion claim.”
“Because Kapitus failed to provide sufficient evidence that Monreal intended to injure Kapitus, the Court denies Kapitus’s claims under § 523(a)(6).”
“ORDERED that the Trustee’s Objection to Exemption (ECF No. 20) is SUSTAINED.”
“ORDERED that the Debtors’ Motion to Convert (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED IN PART.”
“the Court has previously granted each Debtor’s Motion to Convert.”
“The Court therefore sustains Defendants’ original Objection and denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider—except to the extent Plaintiff’s Motion seeks that the Court issue grounds for its alternative grant of summary judgment.”
“DENIES Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 44);”
“DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Allow Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and to Allow for New Evidence (ECF No. 73);”
“DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Leave to Allow for a Further Response to Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Allow for New Evidence in Support of its Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 73).”
“For all these reasons, the Court will GRANT in part the Debtor’s Motion for Sanctions.”
“ORDERED that the Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation of Debtor’s Proposed Chapter 13 Plan (ECF No. 11) is OVERRULED.”
“ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.”
“that such defamation was defamation per se.”
“The Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests for exemplary damages, the claim of business disparagement, and the claim of civil conspiracy.”
“Finally, in its Judgment pursuant to this Opinion, the Court will issue an injunction requiring the removal from all platforms of all statements deemed defamatory but will not enjoin future speech.”
“the SZ Plan can be confirmed only as a non-consensual plan under § 1191(b).”
The court dismissed the case with prejudice until outstanding fees were paid because the debtor had paid no filing fees and had not filed a plan or schedules. The order is retained as context and excluded from motion counts.
“ORDERED that the Debtor’s Motion to Reject Gas Gathering Agreement (ECF No. 84) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Four sampled matters were terminated and one remained pending. One individual case supplied an express order extending the automatic stay.
Draft for Judge Parker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Parker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Parker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace