and are thus preempted, when they are “virtually synonymous” with wrongful copying of a plaintiffs copyright-protected expression. 105 F.3d at 851. Here, plaintiff asserts that Wayans misappropriated plaintiffs screenplay and used its ideas to create White Chicks. These allegations constitute no more than a claim of unauthorized copying of plaintiffs protected ideas actionable under the Copyright Act and thus plaintiffs claim is preempted. Plaintiff cannot avoid preemption by dismissing its copyright claim against Way-ans. It is clear that the preemption provisions of the Copyright Act apply to state law claims seeking protection of equivalent rights, whether or not the plaintiff has contemporaneously asserted a copyright infringement claim. See Briarpatch Ltd., 373 F.3d at 304-07 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiffs claim of idea
holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed holding preemption is appropriate where unjust enrichment claim does not allege that the defendants were enriched by anything other than copyright infringement holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement holding that declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted notwithstanding that plaintiff did not assert a copyright claim