suppression of the witness’ name.” (punctuation omitted)). 20 See Ga. Bldg. Servs., 193 Ga. App. at 290 (1) (a) (“We find the failure of the trial court to allow the witness to testify constituted an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and a new trial.”); see also Skating Clubs of Ga., Inc. v. Hayes, 153 Ga. App. 857, 858 (2) (267 SE2d 285) (1980) (“No matter how competent evidence might he, a new trial will not be granted merely because evidence has been excluded. It must appear that the excluded testimony was material and the substance of what the material evidence is must be called to the attention of the trial court at the time of its exclusion.” (punctuation omitted)). 21 See Weir v. Kirby Constr. Co., 213 Ga. App. 832, 836 (4) (446 SE2d 186) (1 02 (3) (714 SE2d 109) (2011) (<HOLDING>); Neely v. City of Riverdale, 298 Ga. App. 884,
holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding that walsh does not support plaintiffs assertion that they need not allege any actual injury to bring an unjust enrichment claim holding that antelitem notice statute did not apply to claims for unjust enrichment money had and received and breach of city code because they are not claims for injury to person or property holding that although money had and received and unjust enrichment were pled as separate causes of action they are really the same cause of action holding that declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted notwithstanding that plaintiff did not assert a copyright claim