a pattern of misconduct involving nearly a dozen properties over a long period of time. That is sufficient to satisfy the continuity element. The RICO count is pleaded adequately as to the Metro Property defendants, the Beydoun defendants, and the Beydoun Law defendants. G. Count IV: Breach of implied contract/quasi-contract/unjust enrichment The defendants argue that the implied contract claim fails as a matter of law because the parties signed an express contract and cannot plead claims for both breach of contract and implied contract. That is not exactly correct. A party cannot recover under theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment when a transaction is governed by a valid contract. Morris Pumps v. Centerline Piping, Inc., 273 Mich.App. 187, 194-95, 729 N.W.2d 898, 904 (2006) (<HOLDING>). But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3)
holding that an implied contract may not be found if there is an express contract between the same parties on the same subject matter quoting 42 cjs implied and constructive contracts  34 p 33 holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract holding that the law will not imply a contract where there is an existing express contract covering the same subject matter holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant