prizes were unavailable, unwinnable, or previously claimed. The Lottery’s retention of Robinson’s money unjustly enriches the Lottery. According to Robinson, the Lottery is aware that “the reality of the scratch games is that they are simply a regressive tax on lower-income, undereducated and minority citizens.” Robinson argues that because this claim seeks equitable relief that is non-compensatory in natur 3 P.2d 855, 860-62 (1990) (finding that unjust enrichment was an action “based on contract” for the purposes of New Mexico’s governmental immunity statute). To determine if an unjust enrichment claim sounds in tort or contract, some jurisdictions look to the factual basis underlying the claim. See, e.g., Blusal Meats, Inc. v. United States, 638 F.Supp. 824, 832 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (<HOLDING>); Peddinghaus, 230 Ill.Dec. 55, 692 N.E.2d at
holding that plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was predicated on tort and that it was therefore subject to the statute of limitations for tort actions holding that contract debt  was not subject to an act in tort for conversion holding the twoyear period for filing a particular tort action such as assault and battery controls over the more general threeyear statute of limitations for tort actions holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment