seeking restitution]; Professional Tax Appeal v. Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 230, 238 [the elements to a claim for “unjust enrichment” are often “simply stated as ‘receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another;’” internal citation omitted]; Comm. to Save Beverly Highland Homes Assoc. v. Beverly Highland (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1260 [moving party’s papers and evidence are strictly construed on summary judgment]; Maxwell v. Colburn (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 180, 185 [moving parties’ own evidence, and inferences therefrom, may disclose triable issues]; Moving Party Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 12 and 13, and evidence cited in support thereof [escrow holder withheld $238,135.72 to pay off the reverse mortgage obligation, rejected by the lender as insufficient, requiring plaintiff to pay an additional $132,163.25 to resolve on or about 5-7-26]; Sinclair Decl. in support of motion, Ex. 17 [Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded 3-17- 25 by “MTC Financial dba Trustee Corps,” identifying the estimated amount of the outstanding obligation on the subject property as $365,170.02, which is different than the total amount withheld by the escrow holder ($238,135.72) and the amount paid by plaintiff ($132,163.25), no explanation as to the difference; see also Defendant’s Separate Statement, Additional Fact Nos. 1-7, and evidence cited in support thereof, including Yarbrough Decl., ¶ 20, Ex.

C [evidence that escrow entity received payoff demand directly from reverse mortgage lender on or about 4-22-25, not defendant (despite defendant’s attempts to obtain it), and prior to plaintiff’s payment on or about 5-7-25].)

Defendant shall give notice.

9. American Express 1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication National Bank vs. Kim 2. Case Management Conference

25-01482908 Case Dismissed on June 9, 2026.