To recover for unjust enrichment, "[i]t is not enough that the defendant received a benefit from the activities of the plaintiff; if services were performed at the behest of someone other than the defendant, the plaintiff must look to that person for recovery." Fernbach, LLC v. Capital & Guarantee Inc., No. 08CIV1265(SHS), 2009 WL 2474691, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2009) (citing Kagan v. K-Tel Entm't, Inc., 172 A.D.2d 375, 376, 568 N.Y.S.2d 756, 757 (N.Y. 1991); Michele Pommier Models, Inc. v. Men Women N.Y. Model Mgmt., Inc., 14 F.Supp.2d 331, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). Here, George Frenkel testified that he obtained the money on behalf of LGGNY; therefore, the Plaintiff would have to look to LGGNY for recovery.

Several courts, however, have held that plaintiffs "lack the requisite possessory interest in money" when it is "freely given to a defendant with the expectation of performance." Fernbach, LLC v. Capital & Guarantee Inc. , 2009 WL 2474691, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2009) (Stein, J.) (citing Panix Promotions , 2002 WL 122302, at *2 ); Nat'l Westminster Bank PLC v. Grant Prideco, Inc. , 261 F. Supp.2d 265, 275 n.69 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Kaplan, J.).

Plaintiffs have not once alleged or stated that defendant obtained money or property in which plaintiffs held a "possessory interest." See Fernbach, LLC v. Capital & Guarantee Inc., No. 08CIV1265(SHS), 2009 WL 2474691, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2009) (internal citations omitted). "Traditionally, the remedy for money had and received is available 'if one [] has obtained money from another, through the medium of oppression, imposition, extortion, or deceit, or by the commission of a trespass.'"

In general, an action for money had and received is a contract implied in law. Fernbach, LLC v. Capital & Guarantee Inc., No. 08-CV-1265, 2009 WL 2474691, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2009). In order to establish a claim for money had and received, a party must demonstrate "that

To succeed on its claim against Mr. Erlikh for fraud, Plaintiff must prove: "(1) a misrepresentation or a material omission of material fact which was false and known by defendant to be false, (2) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely on it, and (3) justifiably relied upon by the plaintiff, (4) who then suffered an injury as a result of such reliance." Fernbach, LLC v. Capital & Guarantee Inc., 2009 WL 2474691, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2009) (quoting City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com, Inc., 541 F.3d 425, 454 (2d Cir. 2008)). Summary judgment is inappropriate as to all of these causes of action, because there is a material issue of fact genuinely in dispute as to the nature of the agreement between the parties and as to the services rendered by Defendant Erlikh. Although Plaintiff discusses at length in its submissions issues of very limited relevance, such as Defendant Erlikh's criminal history, Plaintiff addresses only in passing the issues that are central to its claims, including the issue of whether the money transferred to IRP was compensation for services related to production of the Movie, or, as Mr. Erlikh testified, for merchandise provided to the Plaintiff in connection with a separate business deal.

Unjust enrichment "is an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties concerned." Fernbach, LLC v. Capital & Guarantee Inc., 08CIV1265 (SHS), 2009 WL 2474691, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2009). It is a quasi-contract claim that "the law creates in the absence of any agreement" between the parties governing the subject of the dispute.