Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 31

Citation
Section 31
Parent Document
250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2005-07-28

Other Sections in This Document (165)

Full Text

438 chars
(1979) 26 Cal.3d 131, 137 [161 Cal.Rptr. 87, 604 P.2d 208].) There would be no such “exchange” in this instance because 250, like other PhotoPoint creditors, is entitled only to a pro rata distribution of PhotoPoint’s assets, not a dollar for dollar recovery of its damages. Entry of the net judgment thus resulted in an “inequitable windfall” to 250 (id. at p. 143), and separate judgments are required. D. Time for Return of the Deposit