With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". complaint. On de novo review, Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm. 1. The district court properly dismissed the claim for wrongful foreclosure. Defendants had statutory authority to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. Cal. Civ.Code § 2924(a)(1). Moreover, the statute does not allow a mortgagee to sue to determine authority to foreclose. Robinson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 199 Cal.App.4th 42, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 811, 814 (2011); Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 819, 824 (2011). 2. The district court properly dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment. Even if such a theory exists in California, compare Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal.App.4th 779, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 357 (2003) (<HOLDING>), with Lectrodryer v. Seoul-Bank, 77

A: holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment
B: holding that a cause of action based on unjust enrichment does not require fault or illegality on the part of the defendant
C: holding that although money had and received and unjust enrichment were pled as separate causes of action they are really the same cause of action
D: 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
A.