With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that this claim be retained, for the same reasons as stated in the Zazzali v. Swenson Report and Recommendation. H. Misappropriation/Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Trust (Counts 11,16, & 25) As in Zazzali v. Swenson, the Court will recommend granting the motion to dismiss Counts 11 and 16 to the extent that they contain misappropriation claims. These claims arise from the alleged commingling of Accountable Reserve funds with general operating accounts. However, the very fact of the co-mingling forecloses an equi table claim for misappropriation under Idaho law. See, Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.3d 642 (2010) (money in a misappropriation claim must be described as a specific chattel); Warm Springs Properties Inc. v. Andora Villa, Inc., 96 Idaho 270, 272, 526 P.2d 1106, 1108 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Defendant offers no specific

A: holding that in a case where a suspended attorney commingled funds between his attorney trust account and attorney business account and the funds could not be traced claimants state of new jersey and clients security fund reached an amicable agreement to divide the funds equally
B: holding that party that did not establish ownership in specific funds was a general creditor that only had a right to payment
C: holding that where there is a mixture of private and government funds development is not at private expense and the government gets unlimited rights to all the data
D: holding that a misappropriation claim did not lie once funds at issue lost their specific identity through mixture into defendants general checking account
D.