How has issue preclusion been applied in a personal injury case?

We surmise that after hearing the parties' extensive arguments and the bankruptcy court's examination of the evidence in support of issue preclusion, the court concluded that it was "manifestly clear" that debtor's testimony could not prove that the state court judgment had no preclusive effect. Once it determined that debtor's testimony would not be sufficient to rebut the application of issue preclusion, the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion to halt the trial and take the matter under submission. See Granite State Ins. Co., 76 F.3d at 1031; Stone v. Millstein, 804 F.2d 1434, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, plaintiffs' Civil Rule 52(c) motion was procedurally appropriate, and debtor was not deprived of his right to a trial.

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their claims against defendant are excepted from discharge under 523(a)(6) by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284 (1991). Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge any debt for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.