Michael D. Lorensen
How Judge Lorensen rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lorensen
Michael D. Lorensen has served as a West Virginia circuit judge since 2012 and joined the state’s Business Court Division in 2018. He became chair of the Business Court Division in 2019. Before joining the bench, he practiced law in Martinsburg and earned his undergraduate and law degrees from West Virginia University.
Judge Lorensen's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Lorensen's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
How Judge Lorensen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the cited public utility dispute, he deferred to the West Virginia Public Service Commission’s ruling when it conflicted with a federal bankruptcy court’s interpretation, citing the state Supreme Court of Appeals’ direction to defer to commission orders.
“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.”
In American Bituminous Power Partners, LP v. Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc., he rejected AMBIT’s account of the purpose of the bench trial because it conflicted with the state Supreme Court of Appeals’ directives, the parties’ pretrial agreement, and the pretrial order.
“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.”
In American Bituminous Power Partners, LP v. Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc., he denied a challenge to post-judgment collection calculations after finding that the expert had chosen one of five accepted day-count conventions rather than overlooked leap years.
“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
In American Bituminous Power Partners, LP v. Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc., he decided a motion to alter or amend the final judgment without oral argument because the written submissions adequately presented the facts and law.
“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.”
In American Bituminous Power Partners, LP v. Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc., he denied a stay pending an extraordinary writ because the state Supreme Court of Appeals had not issued a rule to show cause.
“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.”
In American Bituminous Power Partners, LP v. Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc., he denied Horizon’s motion to reconsider a prior denial.
“Motion to Reconsider Denial of Horizon's Motion filed by Mark Kepple is hereby DENIED.”
Cautions
In American Bituminous Power Partners, LP v. Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc., he denied AMBIT’s motion to enforce its proposed settlement terms because the parties had not agreed to the additional financing provisions.
“The Court finds there is no evidence these terms were agreed to by the parties, and the Court cannot, as a matter of law, read these terms into the parties’ May 2024 Agreement.”
In American Bituminous Power Partners, LP v. Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc., he denied AMBIT’s motion to quash Horizon’s post-judgment suggestions. He found no improper attempt to obtain private financial information because AMBIT had already been ordered to produce the same financial reports.
“Therefore, this 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.”
“Having fully considered the parties’ briefs, the trial transcript, and this Court’s Order of October 31, 2023, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter, Amend and for other Relief and awards Horizon its fees and costs associated with its response necessitated by AMBIT’s motion practice.”
“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.”
“It is hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Memorandum of Law is hereby DENIED.”
“ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Horizon’s Motion to Deem AMBIT in Default of Its Judgment Payment Obligations to Horizon is hereby GRANTED.”
“be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice to the parties, and is retired from the docket of this Court, with each party to pay their own respective costs, legal fees, and expenses.”
Draft for Judge Lorensen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lorensen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lorensen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace