Cited by

The superior court denied leave to file the second amended complaint and granted dismissal on the ground that Markham failed to allege misconduct by the defendants consistent with Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC

“[U]njust enrichment provides a remedy when a party has received a benefit at another’s expense and, in good conscience, the benefitted party should compensate the other.” Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (citing cases).

¶ 28 n.2 (2020); Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 33 (App. 2012).

An unjust enrichment claim requires proof of “(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.” ¶ 31 (App. 2020) (quoting Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012)).

“[U]njust enrichment provides a remedy when a party has received a benefit at 6 BEST v. DOMINGUEZ, et al. Decision of the Court another’s expense and, in good conscience, the benefitted party should compensate the other.” Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (citing cases).

¶19 "An unjust enrichment claim requires proof of five elements: '(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.'" Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 27 (App. 2011)).

Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012).

5 BEAUCHAMP, et al. v. GUST ROSENFELD Decision of the Court ¶17 Next, relying upon Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, BLO argues that Arizona law precludes liability under unjust enrichment because she did not engage in improper conduct nor have privity with Gust.

A claim of unjust enrichment requires proof of five elements: “(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy by law.” Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (quotation omitted).

See Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (“[U]njust enrichment provides a remedy when a party has received a benefit at another’s expense and, in good conscience, the benefitted party should compensate the other.”).

See Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 33 (App. 2012).

Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, L.L.C., ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (quoting Murdock-Bryant Constr., ).8 6 Because the verified complaint and deposition testimony are sufficient to create a question of material fact, we need not address the admissibility of the email that was translated from Vietnamese to English

Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 48

Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, L.L.C., ¶ 10 4 Although Husband contends Wife “acknowledged that no equalization payment was owed to her arising from the transfer of the house,” the portions of the record he cites do not support his contention.

¶13 A claim of unjust enrichment requires proof of “(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.” Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10, 4 CARTER’S INC. v. JADE II Decision of the Court

§ 33–993(A); Wang Elec., ¶ 19

To prevail on an unjust enrichment claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.” Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10

See Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10, (unjust enrichment requires proof of an “absence of a remedy provided by law”).

P. 56(e); Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 9

P. 56(e); Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 9