Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): was made available to the Court by way of the opposition brief submitted by counsel on behalf of Hawkins, pp. 1-2, as well as defense counsel’s contentions at oral argument on December 21, 1998. 8 . Hawkins does not contest the preclusive effect of the judgment debt or the amount of the judgment, $750,152.16. Thus, this Court will recognize the state court’s finding as to that amount. 9 . Mattson’s legal argument centers on the pre-clusive effect of the default judgment entered by the Superior Court of New Jersey. If, however, there is no preclusive effect, then the Court would have to determine whether there is a material issue of fact which would require the Court to deny Mattson’s motion for summary judgment. See In re Rubitschung, 103 B.R. 1010, 1011-12 (Bankr.C.D.111.1988) (<HOLDING>). The parties would then have to proceed to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the circumstances which caused a fight between the plaintiffcreditor and the defendantdebtor pre1 eluded plaintiffcreditors motion for summary judgment as to the  523a6 nondischargeability of his state court default judgment (B) holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact (C) holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment (D) holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment (E) holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity
Output (English): holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment