Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6).” Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich), 238 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 930, 121 S.Ct. 2552, 150 L.Ed.2d 718 (2001). The state court judgment necessarily included this essential element of § 523(a)(6). The jury found that the Diamonds “intentionally caused injury” to the Kolcums “without just cause.” In order to find fraud, the jury had to determine that there was intentional tortious conduct. Therefore, the issues implicated by § 523(a)(6) were actually litigated in the state court proceeding, and the bankruptcy court was correct to accord the state court judgment preclusive effect with regard to the Kolcums’ § 523(a)(6) claim. Cf. Baldwin v. Kilpatrick (In re Baldwin), 249 F.3d 912, 918-20 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 3. Preclusive Effect of a State Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the issues implicated by  523a6 were actually litigated in a california state intentional tort suit and therefore according the judgment collateral estoppel effect under california law (B) holding that california courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over floridabased reporters did not violate due process when allegedly defamatory article that was the basis of the suit focused on the california activities of california residents (C) holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law (D) recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired (E) holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars readjudication of issues when 1 the prior suit resulted in judgment on the merits 2 identical issues are involved 3 the issue was actually litigated 4 the issue was actually determined and 5 the determination was necessary to the resulting judgment
Output (English): recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired