intentionally gave false information in connection with a background check for his for mr schrader's application to become a fireman this led to a california lawsuit for slander after mr sanghas answer to the complaint was stricken for discovery abuses he failed to file any response to an amended complaint mr schrader sought default prove up hearing he proved the necessary for allegations of the amended complaint and judgment was entered it was for one point four million dollars included in the judgment were six thousand dollars in punitive damages that doesn't sound like a lot but if the award of punitive damages is actually very critical to this  file bankruptcy in turn mr schrader filed a pro per complaint to have the judgment cleared not dischargeable under section five twenty three eighty six of the bankruptcy code as being based on a  willful and malicious injury the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment that decision was overturned by the baptists and so there we are well let's talk about jurisdiction first and whether we even have the it was not remained and for further findings of fact it was remanded simply because that's what has to happen when summary judgment is reversed mr schrader is never had a trial as yet so it had to be remanded this case falls outside the rule that says that when a case is remanded for further factual findings this court doesn't have jurisdiction the case of  of king versus stanton which we cited makes the distinction very clearly between a reversal which is final and is appealable and a reversal for additional fact finding which is not fine not final and not appealable so what factual findings were made over in the state court proceeding  state court and heard judgement following the prove up hearing the there were no specific findings because it was a default hearing what we have then is the state court complaint and the judgment which the bankruptcy court relied for its determination that summary judgment was appropriate on issue preclusion grounds so what are you seeking from us what's your what's the ruling you want to see coming out of the circuit and the ruling is to reverse the baptists and affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court and what's your main best argument for that because it seems like  this case of primum applies here legally if i am is correct we're not challenging playa but it doesn't apply because this is not a case where there was any ambiguity about the reason for the state damages and didn't delve any deeper we're saying that it's the award of punitive damages plus the state court complaint because the default judgment is limited to the four corners of the state court complaint and based on that state court complaint which alleged only an intent to injure mr schrader that defines the were made when the awarding punitive damages no ok but they're not necessary under this court's prior authorities it's enough to look at the complaint and the judgment so you're saying we look to the allegations of the state complaint but i guess my question is why wouldn't we send this to the bankruptcy court to do that in the first instance over review and you are in as good a position as the back where the bankruptcy court to make that determination all you're doing is looking at the complaint and the judgment and that's not something that the bankruptcy court has to do in order to get punitive damages so there's a favor approved yes so what we need to do is send that back because we're really involved here and the question of law  yes not necessarily that the bankruptcy court and the life of the state court complaint but when you analyze the state court complaint the only possible conclusion is that the award  damages had to be based on a a determination of intentional malice and you can make that this that's your position and if and when we can make that decision because it's a question what's your position well your honor i would say that this court would be able to make that determination had there not been so many questionable vents during the state court litigation as discussed in the briefs mr saying how unfortunately hired the wrong attorney an attorney who disappeared on him lied to him about progress on the case and it is a direct result of this attorney's in action that the default judgment terminating sanctions all of that arose also if you look to the docket of the state court case it the amended complaint was filed after terminating sanctions was granted but there's no evidence that that was actually served upon my client or his absentee attorney at the time furthermore what was brought up in the underlying bankruptcy case and also at the back here eating there is very strong evidence that mr schrader's injury was in fact a result of his own actions and not those of my client there is a protective order that we've been waiting to get filled for from the city of san jose that shows that he failed his psychological exam because of his own psych test not because of statements made by mr saying this in fact would be the source of his injury and not the statements made by really litigate the state court case no your honor and i'm not asking that the the issue be related gated but when we're getting down to the issue of well fullness a willful english is injury i that the bankruptcy court does have the purview to look to other evidence at least an evidentiary hearing or in looking at the summary judgment offense if not for not can if they were not to consider that outside evidence i don't think that there would be an additional accept and if there is no acceptance for the bankruptcy court to use their own judgment in determining whether or not there should be precludes of effect so i guess i'm reman is it likely that the bankruptcy court will conclude that a will for malicious injury did not take place i believe it all rests upon whether or not we can have that subpoena fulfilled to get the mental health records from the city of san jose and so i sounds like you disagree with mr hughes that the baptists or are we should look at the allegation and traders complaint in the state court proceeding first yes your honor why i mean for the same reasons you've just been discussing these there's questions regarding facts based on the litigation yes  e and do you agree we have jurisdiction yes your hon conduct is that your do you agree with that yes your honor and so what do you think could come out based on that what could what can be come from the review either by either court and affect the  previous judgment think it speaks to the very injury itself the very source of this judgment if the injury itself resulted from another action completely not those of my client airsick the bankruptcy court to look at the what what the effect of the state court judgment actually was not to determine what the underlying conduct was you're correct your honor and i agree with it being remanded to the bankruptcy court i mean as stated before it's not a reversal it's it's just gives us some of another fighting chance in the bankruptcy court to bring up something that we were trying to bring up all along but were denied a continuance to be able to prepare a defense well and the bat also did say i mean it's possible that the bankruptcy court could give it precludes of effect is that right that is sort of yes your honor so you understand that possibility i do but you stink it's to go back to the bankruptcy court i do i don't have much time so i'll be very quick full faith and credit which binds this court the man's that precludes of the fact be given to the state court judgment that it assuming that the standards are met we cannot relate a gate the state court action we can't relive again the injury now but the best conclusion that the bankruptcy court cared you know i think was probably correct and should be firm but the question is whether you know the back was also correct in that issue preclusion may still apply but only after a more considered evaluation because the bankruptcy court didn't really consider more than the stake judgment was issued and therefore gave it produces effect without looking at anything further so you disagree with that no i just submit that decide this one thing that maybe that's important is that you are reviewing the bankruptcy court decision not the baps decision i but we've been talking about the bad but the way that this is teed up  to review the bankruptcy court and you can affirm on any grounds fairly presented by the record the record here contains the complaint in the judgment and you can make your determination on that basis or we can send it back that you don't think that's necessary i don't think it's necessary if we just went up to the gang of six and i said the bad i meant the bankruptcy credit got well thank you appreciate it thank you thank you both for your arguments very helpful the case