Michael D. Lorensen
How Judge Lorensen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When two courts have reached opposite conclusions on the same statutory question, he defers to the state administrative agency with direct authority over the subject matter (here, the Public Service Commission) over a competing federal court's contrary reading, even where the agency's own precedent is decades old -- and even when a more recent, out-of-circuit decision took the other side.
“This Court, in considering the competing holdings from the PSC Order and the federal Bankruptcy Court order, concludes it must follow the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which gives deference to PSC orders.”
He treats a party's own prior representations and agreements at pretrial conferences as binding on later attempts to recharacterize what a bench trial or damages hearing was actually for -- reframing an earlier stipulation after an adverse result gets little traction.
“AMBIT's instant Motion to Alter or Amend is predicated upon its assertion that the purpose of the bench trial was to determine whether rent was owed, but not to actually seek an award compelling payment of that amount owed. That assertion is contrary to the West Virginia Supreme Court's directives, the agreement of the parties at the Pre-Trial conference and Court's July 28, 2023, Pre-Trial Order.”
On a post-judgment dispute over the math behind an award, he will credit a qualified expert's transparent, documented methodology over a competing expert's bottom-line disagreement, especially where the challenging party's own conduct (accepting a favorable rate elsewhere in the same calculation) undercuts its objection.
“The Court considers that with regard to the leap year discrepancies, it was not that Horizon overlooked that 2020 and 2024 were leap years, but that Mr. Costanzo chose one of five widely used, generally accepted day count conventions to perform his calculations.”
Procedural preferences
He dispenses with oral argument as a matter of course when the briefing is thorough, deciding even dispositive post-trial motions on the papers.
“The Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”
On a motion to stay proceedings pending an extraordinary writ, he insists on the formal procedural trigger (an actual rule to show cause) rather than granting a discretionary stay merely because a writ has been filed, particularly close to a scheduled trial date.
“As of the date of the entry of this Order, there has been no evidence submitted to this Court ... that the Supreme Court has issued a rule to show cause. Therefore, a stay under Rule 16 is unwarranted. ... If the Supreme Court issues a rule to show cause, of course the matter will be stayed.”
Once he has committed a case to a firm trial or hearing schedule, he is reluctant to reopen procedural rulings (an earlier discovery ruling, a scheduling order) through a reconsideration motion absent a genuinely new argument, even where the underlying dispute is old and contentious.
“Motion to Reconsider Denial of Horizon's Motion filed by Mark Kepple is hereby DENIED.”
Cautions
A party trying to enforce an unsigned, orally-reached settlement on a disputed term should expect the Court to require it actually prove the parties reached that specific term, not merely that a settlement in principle exists -- and a party that withholds a scheduled payment while that dispute is pending risks being found in default rather than excused.
“AMBIT argues that the parties' agreement necessitates Horizon's consent and signature regarding the bank ... obtaining a priority position for liens on AMBIT's assets ... Horizon avers it did not agree to this.”
A judgment debtor challenging post-judgment collection process (suggestee executions, suggestions of personal property) on procedural or informational-privacy grounds should expect close scrutiny of whether it was already independently ordered to produce the same information -- an argument that the creditor is improperly circumventing privacy protections carries little weight once the debtor's own disclosure obligations already covered the same ground.
“The Court finds no improper probing into any alleged private financial information via Horizon's attempts to collect on its judgment under the procedure set forth in the relevant statutes.”
In a motion to dismiss turning on whether an unapproved inter-affiliate transaction is void under West Virginia's public-utility statute, arguing that a competing federal ruling should control over the state regulator's own order is not enough where the state's Supreme Court of Appeals has clearly established that PSC orders receive deference.
“It is this Court's duty to follow the law and directives of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ... PSC orders are to be given deference in West Virginia Courts and not disturbed unless such finding is contrary to the evidence, or is without evidence to support it, or is arbitrary, or results from a misapplication of legal principles.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“This Court concludes it must give deference to the PSC order, which concluded that the subject contract was void because prior approval was not sought, pursuant to West Virginia Code Sec. 24-2-12. As such, the Court finds that Count I of the Complaint, Breach of Contract, must be dismissed. ... The motion to dismiss as to all other counts is denied.”
“AMBIT's Motion for Res Judicata Determination filed by Roberta Green is hereby DENIED.”
“Motion to Reconsider Denial of Horizon's Motion filed by Mark Kepple is hereby DENIED.”
“It is hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Horizon Ventures of West Virginia Inc.'s Motion to Stay Proceedings is hereby DENIED.”
“AMBIT's instant Motion to Alter or Amend is predicated upon its assertion that the purpose of the bench trial was to determine whether rent was owed, but not to actually seek an award compelling payment of that amount owed. That assertion is contrary to the West Virginia Supreme Court's directives, the agreement of the parties at the Pre-Trial conference and Court's July 28, 2023, Pre-Trial Order.”
“AMBIT's arguments in the instant motion simply do not demonstrate a clear error of law upon which to alter or amend a judgment.”
“The Court declines to vacate the suggestions on Plaintiff's argument that the suggestee executions were incorrect mathematically. For these reasons, the instant Motion to Vacate Suggestee Executions, for Expedited Relief and to Stay Execution Pending Verification of Process is DENIED.”
“The Court finds Horizon has issued the correct documentation to the correct suggestees to begin collecting its judgment. ... For all of these reasons, the Court is not persuaded that the suggestions should be vacated because Horizon is trying to circumvent the process to obtain private financial information belonging to AMBIT.”
“The dispute surrounds one particular issue in the payment agreement/settlement: AMBIT argues that the parties' agreement necessitates Horizon's consent and signature regarding the bank ... obtaining a priority position for liens on AMBIT's assets and a priority position on payments of Accrued Subordinated Rent. ... Horizon avers it did not agree to this.”
“On or about December 3, 2024, Defendant, by counsel, filed Horizon's Response to AMBIT's Motion to Enforce Settlement and Motion to Deem AMBIT in Default of Its Judgment Payment Obligations to Horizon.”
Put Judge Lorensen's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Lorensen actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Lorensen's own signed orders and cites them.