paint-brush
Plaintiffs in the OpenAI Lawsuit Don't Have a Claim for Unjust Enrichmentby@legalpdf

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

by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too...

September 22nd, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
Print this story
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 15 of 21.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail

@legalpdf

featured image - Plaintiffs in the OpenAI Lawsuit Don't Have a Claim for Unjust Enrichment
1x
Read by Dr. One voice-avatar

Listen to this story

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

About @legalpdf
LEARN MORE ABOUT @LEGALPDF'S
EXPERTISE AND PLACE ON THE INTERNET.

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 15 of 21.

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.


Continue Reading here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on September 8, 2023, from DocumentCloud.org is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.


L O A D I N G
. . . comments & more!

About Author

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases@legalpdf
Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

Permanent on Arweave
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
 Terminal
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
 Lite

Mentioned in this story

profiles
X REMOVE AD