MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2019, plaintiff George P. Persico (“Persico” or “plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed an unjust enrichment claim against defendants Michael F. Cassadei (Cassadei”) and Annmarie Neri (“Neri”). Dkt. No. 1. According to plaintiff’s seven-count complaint, Cassadei and Neri (collectively “defendants”), working together as partners, failed to provide certain agreed-upon real estate services to plaintiff while he traveled out of state. On June 7, 2019, defendants answered Persico’s complaint.1 Dkt. No. 8. Thereafter, plaintiff filed pro se motions seeking the appointment of a federal prosecutor to investigate defendants’ allegedly criminal activities. Dkt. Nos. 15, 17. Those motions were denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on June 21, 2019. Dkt. No. 18. At plaintiff’s request, Judge Hummel adjourned an initial discovery conference to afford plaintiff time in which to locate and hire an attorney. Dkt. Nos. 21-22. On August 16, 2019, Persico advised the Court that he intended to proceed without the help of a lawyer after all. Dkt. No. 23. That notice was followed by a smattering of pro se filings in advance of the initial discovery conference that had been placed back on the Court’s calendar. Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37. On September 10, 2019, Judge Hummel held the initial pretrial conference between the parties, answered questions about federal court practice that were raised by Persico, and sent the parties off with a schedule outlining how they should conduct discovery. Text Minute Entry at 10/10/19; see also Dkt. No. 89 (transcript of proceedings). This set off another round of pro se filings, Dkt Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, which led to the scheduling of a second conference with Judge Hummel, Dkt. No. 44; see also Dkt. Nos. 45-46 (additional pro se filings). There, Judge Hummel addressed plaintiff’s latest filings and answered more questions about the discovery process, motion practice, and trial preparation issues. Text Minute Entry at 10/21/19. This pattern continued. However, thanks to repeated interventions by Judge Hummel, the parties managed to conduct discovery into Persico’s claim(s) over the next six or so months. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 47-48 (plaintiff filing motions), 50 (Court addressing motions), 51-56 (plaintiff filing new motions), 57 (Court addressing motions), 67-68 (filing), 69 (addressing), 70-71 (filing), Text Minute Entry at 1/23/20 (addressing latest filings and summarizing new rulings). On March 20, 2020, Persico moved under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment against defendants. Dkt. No. 91. According to plaintiff, he had established as a matter of law that defendants had been unjustly enriched at his expense. Id. Shortly afterward, defendants moved for summary judgment, too. Dkt. No. 92. In that filing, defendants recounted the parties’ shared history and asserted that plaintiff has no facts on which to base his claim that defendants owed him money. Id. More filings by both parties followed, Dkt. Nos. 93-97, including a second motion by plaintiff for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 98, an assortment of supporting documents, Dkt. Nos. 99-110, and a third motion by plaintiff for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 111. On May 6, 2020, Justin T. Huffman, Esq. entered a notice of appearance on behalf of Persico, Dkt. No. 112, and wrote to this Court to request an adjournment of the briefing schedules so that plaintiff might have an opportunity to submit additional briefing on the summary judgment issues in a proper counseled filing, Dkt. No. 113. That request was granted the very next day. Dkt. No. 114. On May 21, 2020, Persico filed a counseled response in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 115. Defendants filed a reply along with some supplemental briefing. Dkt. Nos. 116-121. The motions — all of them — are now fully briefed. They will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument. II. BACKGROUND Persico is a disabled veteran. Persico Dep., Dkt. No. 115-2 at 12:15-16. He owned a house at 52 Romeyn Avenue in Amsterdam, New York. Id. at 15:14-15, 17:10-17. However, plaintiff was not always present at the property because he often traveled out of state. Id. at 12:15-13:7. In 2010, Neri introduced plaintiff to Cassadei. Persico Dep. at 60:24-61:7. The two became friends. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts (“Defs.’ Facts”), Dkt. No. 92-5 3. Cassadei expressed interested in buying the Romeyn Avenue property from plaintiff, but no purchase was ever made because the property was in a state of disrepair. Id.
4-6. For a short period of time, Cassadei offered to help Persico find tenants for the Romeyn Avenue property. Defs.’ Facts 9. However, Cassadei was not compensated for these efforts and never agreed to be responsible for the property in any way. Id.
