In People v. Dalvito (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 557, the defendant stole a necklace from a jewelry dealer, who had purchased the necklace from a wholesaler on the defendant's behalf. After the dealer stopped payment on his check for the purchase price, the wholesaler sued and obtained a judgment against the dealer for the amount of the check. The dealer later declared bankruptcy and this judgment against him was discharged. (Id. at p. 559.) Later, the defendant pleaded guilty to theft, and the court ordered him to pay restitution to the dealer for the stolen necklace. (Ibid.) On appeal, the defendant argued the dealer had suffered no true loss because the debt he incurred for purchasing the necklace was discharged in bankruptcy. (Id. at p. 560.) The appellate court rejected this argument, noting the dealer clearly suffered an economic loss when the defendant stole the necklace from him and observing "whatever actions were taken by the victim of defendant's crime in civil courts in order to mitigate the damage caused by defendant cannot be a subject for our interference." (Id. at p. 561.)