Hughes

MEMORANDUM **

Melanie Hughes, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s partial summary judgment that her debt to defendants was nondischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from a bank *361 ruptcy court and the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err when it granted summary judgment on the non-dischargeability of Hughes’s debt based on her willful and malicious conduct. See 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(6) (providing for exceptions to discharge “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity”).

Contrary to Hughes’s contentions, the bankruptcy court properly gave preclusive effect to the state court order awarding attorney’s fees because the issue of Hughes’s willfulness and maliciousness was squarely before the court when it determined whether her conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or in bad faith under California…