used Plaintiffs’ property to dispose of pollutants and saved the expenses of otherwise collecting and disposing of same.” Branch, 778 F.Supp. at 35-36. Indeed, a number of other courts beyond those on which Plaintiff relies have upheld the recovery of restitution damages for a polluter’s disposal of waste on another’s property that confers a benefit on the polluter. See N.C. Corff P’ship, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 929 P.2d 288, 295 (Okla.Ct.App.1996) (Property surface owner was not precluded from making alternative claim for unjust enrichment in its action against oil and gas well operator, arising from alleged pollution of groundwater by operation of oil and gas wells, alleging common law torts); Evans v. City of Johnstown, 96 Misc.2d 755, 410 N.Y.S.2d 199, 205-07 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1978) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Healy Tibbitts Const. Co.,
holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment recognizing a claim for civil liability against municipalities  under  1983 holding that plaintiff could proceed on claim for unjust enrichment against municipalities for money saved by not properly disposing of waste materials holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment