I. Continental argues that RAM can not maintain the claim against it because, as a trustee, Continental is not liable for the expenses incurred by the trust. Rather, any relief would have to come from the trust itself. Continental’s position is incorrect. ■ . RAM is free to sue Continental as long as RAM has some cause of action upon which to base its suit. The fact that some other party ultimately might have to indemnify Continental does not mean that RAM must pursue only that party. Indeed, the very treatise on which Continental relies to support its position states exactly the opposite: “[a trustee] is entitled to indemnity for expenses incurred by him for the benefit of the trust estate in defend Ins. Co., 137 Ill.App.3d 84, 90-91, 484 N.E.2d 349, 354, 91 Ill.Dec. 790, 795 (1985) (<HOLDING>), I do not interpret Illinois law as requiring
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 that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory holding that unjust enrichment is brought about by unlawful or improper conduct as defined by law holding that where plaintiffs filed a complaint for conversion unjust enrichment and injunctive relief they had an adequate remedy at law