support a suit. Id. at 1222. Although Thompsen leaves a range of factual situations undecided — cases where no actual refusal is expressed, or where a defendant had not yet benefitted from the plaintiffs efforts, for instance — it did decide that in cases where the “compensation has been wrongfully withheld,” the statute of limitation begins to run when compensation is refused. Id. at 1219. Another court in this circuit, while quoting the language in Thompsen that “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiffs last service has been rendered and compensation has been wrongfully withheld,” nonetheless held that the limitation time there began to run “upon the presentation of [the benefit] to the defendants.” McQueen v. Woodstream Corp., 244 F.R.D. 26, 35-36 (D.D.C.2007) (<HOLDING>). McQueen, however, is clearly distinguishable
holding product developers claim timebarred because discovery rule  does not apply to unjust enrichment claims citing thompsen 878 a2d at 1225 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 declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted notwithstanding that plaintiff did not assert a copyright claim holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force