Plaintiffs in the OpenAI Lawsuit Don't Have a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IV. ARGUMENT

C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail for Reasons Specific to Each Claim.

5. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment fails because it is not an independent cause of action. “[I]n California, there is no[] standalone cause of action for ‘unjust enrichment.’” Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015). Courts instead “construe [an unjust enrichment claim] as a quasi-contract claim for restitution.” Id. (cleaned up).

But plaintiffs cannot recover on a quasi-contract claim if they also seek to recover under a breach of contract claim, as they do here. See Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1342, 1388 (2012) (A plaintiff may not “recover on a quasi-contract claim if the parties have an enforceable agreement.”).

Because Plaintiffs do not allege the absence of an enforceable contract—and in fact allege the opposite—Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed.

In any event, Plaintiffs have not pled the required elements for unjust enrichment as they have not adequately alleged that the OpenAI Entities “ha[ve] been unjustly conferred a benefit through mistake, fraud, coercion, or request.” See Astiana, 783 F.3d at 762. (cleaned up). F

inally, to the extent Plaintiffs’ “unjust enrichment claim” under the UCL is seeking restitution based on an alleged violation of the UCL, that claim fails for the same reasons discussed in Section B.6.below.