Lombardi v. Picard, 640 B.R. 545

On Sept. 10, 1998, Michael Picard brutally attacked Sabrina Lombardi (and a roommate), causing serious, long‑term physical and psychological injuries.
Picard was taken to the ER that night, diagnosed with acute psychosis by Dr. Beverly Mikuriya, and later diagnosed with bipolar disorder; he told staff God told him to act and thought victims had the devil in them.
Picard pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault in the criminal case; Lombardi obtained a $250,000 civil judgment for pain and suffering in 2011.
Picard filed Chapter 7 in 2016; Lombardi filed an adversary complaint seeking a § 523(a)(6) determination that the civil judgment is nondischargeable as a willful and malicious injury.
Pretrial delays by Lombardi’s counsel led the court to limit her witnesses and exhibits but proceed to a Zoom trial where Dr. Mikuriya and two eyewitnesses testified about Picard’s psychosis and lack of control.
The court concluded the assault was malicious but, because Picard was in an acute psychotic break and lacked the requisite intent, the injury was not "willful" under § 523(a)(6); the civil judgment is dischargeable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the civil judgment is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) (willful & malicious injury)	Lombardi: judgment (and guilty plea) establish willful and malicious injury; debt should be nondischargeable	Picard: he suffered acute psychosis and lacked intent; plea may rest on reckless standard and does not mandate nondischargeability	Injury was malicious but not willful; judgment is dischargeable under § 523(a)(6)
Whether the guilty plea/civil judgment has preclusive effect to establish willfulness	Lombardi: plea and civil judgment collaterally estop Picard from denying willfulness	Picard: aggravated assault can be based on recklessness; plea record and civil judgment here do not show intentional conduct	Court declined to treat plea/judgment as dispositive of willfulness given lack of findings that conduct was intentional
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was warranted after plaintiff counsel missed pretrial deadlines	Lombardi: excusable delay; case should proceed	Picard: sought dismissal due to prejudice from discovery/pretrial noncompliance	Court refused dismissal but imposed sanctions: limited witness list and exhibit admission, and proceeded to trial

Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) (§ 523(a)(6) requires deliberate or intentional injury; reckless conduct not included)
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (creditor bears burden of proving nondischargeability by preponderance)
In re Jacobs, 381 B.R. 128 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008) (exceptions to discharge construed narrowly; malice requires aggravated circumstances)
GMAC Inc. v. Coley (In re Coley), 433 B.R. 476 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2010) (willfulness requires subjective awareness of substantially certain harm)
CB Research & Dev., Inc. v. Kates (In re Kates), 485 B.R. 86 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) (actions substantially certain to produce injury are willful)