See e.g. 24/7 Restoration Specialists, LLC v. Young, 634 F.Supp.3d 287, 292 (E.D. La. 2022), which refused to dismiss unjust enrichment claims at the motion to dismiss stage given the parties' dispute about the existence of a contract. See also BlueTeam Roofing, LLC v. Piazza, No. CV 23-931, 2023 WL 7920748, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov. 16, 2023) (allowing unjust enrichment to proceed as an alternative claim under Rule 8 where the underlying facts to be discovered may not ultimately support any other claims); Gilco Constr. Co. v. Falcon Holdings Mgmt., LLC, No. CV 20-37-JWD-SDJ, 2021 WL 4765503, at *8 (M.D. La. Sept. 20, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 20-37-JWD-SDJ, 2021 WL 4755620 (M.D. La. Oct. 12, 2021) (declining to dismiss unjust enrichment claims at removal stage where as yet undiscovered facts rendered a determination on the existence and viability of other claims premature.) Compare MCP Int'l, LLC v. Formula Four Beverages, Inc., No. CV 20-3440-WBV-DMD, 2022 WL 782752, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 15, 2022) (dismissing alternatively pled unjust enrichment claim where the parties did not dispute the existence of a valid contract, thereby establishing an undisputed breach of contract claim).