Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment in a nondischargeability action filed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). The basis for the debt was a check issued by debtor to a third party that was cashed at plaintiff's business and then returned for insufficient funds. The court held that, on a motion for default judgment, plaintiff was minimally required to both establish the existence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and make a prima facie showing of the elements of its claim. Those elements include that the debtor: (1) received value from; (2) made a false representation to; and (3) intended to defraud, the plaintiff. The court found that plaintiff failed to prove the elements of its claim that the debt should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2) by a preponderance of the evidence. In so finding, the court held that issuance of a check on an account containing insufficient funds is not an implied representation that sufficient funds are on account to cover the check, relying on Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982). Additionally, the check itself did not amount to a written statement regarding the debtor's financial condition for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(B). The court refused to give collateral estoppel effect to a Nevada state court default judgment, as the issue of intent had not actually been litigated in that case, nor were the elements of the state statute identical to the elements required to prevent discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B). Likewise, a Nevada criminal statute that implied intent could not provide the basis for a finding of intent under § 523(a)(2). The court held the debt to be dischargeable and dismissed the adversary proceeding.