Williams, 587 So.2d 732, 738 (La.App. 2 Cir.1999); see also Retail Estate, Inc., No. 07-712 (M.D.La. Oct. 19, 2007)(“equitable considerations cannot be permitted to prevail when in conflict with written positive law[; therefore,] plaintiff cannot make claims in estoppel”); Franklin v. Blount, No. 06-847, 2007 WL 437691, at *2 (La.App. 1 Cir. Feb. 9, 2007)(“Equitable considerations and estoppel cannot be permitted to prevail when in conflict with positive written law”); Century 21 Flavin Realty, Inc. v. Erwin Heirs, Inc., 657 So.2d 108 (La.App. 3 Cir,1995)(noting that the plaintiff “has not referred us to any jurisprudence which supports a real estate broker’s claim for commissions based solely on the theory of quantum meruit”); Brumfield v. Brumfield, 450 So.2d 1019 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984)(<HOLDING>). B. Finally, there is the issue of the
holding that to the extent the plaintiff invokes principles of equity and unjust enrichment the court finds such principles inapplicable in the face of a clear statutory prohibition 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 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 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 there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment