declines to engage in a choice of law analysis at this juncture. Defendants themselves concede that the Court need not make this decision at this time. Importantly, the Court notes that Plaintiffs will ultimately bear the burden of establishing whether this claim can be certified as a nationwide class. The Young court further noted that district courts have taken different positions on whether the elements of unjust enrichment are materially different across the fifty states. 671 F.Supp.2d at 1017. Moreover, the authorities provided by Defendants under Alabama, Maryland, and New York law are not persuasive and do not render Plaintiffs’ claim unavailable as a matter of law at the pleading stage. See Lemoine Co. of Alabama, L.L.C. v. HLH Constructors, Inc., 62 So.3d 1020, 1028 (Ala.2010) (<HOLDING>); Janusz v. Gilliam, 404 Md. 524, 947 A.2d 560,
holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law holding quantum meruit unavailable to remedy invalid contract holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor holding that a subcontractor could not recover on theory of quantum meruit for an implied contract against general contractor where condition precedent to payment under express contract was not satisfied holding that a clause making payment by the owner an express condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor was enforceable