Robert Gutkowski, a sports marketing expert, met numerous times with George Steinbrenner, the owner of the New York Yankees, and other Yankees executives over a ten-year period to help launch the Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network (YES Network). He was a paid consultant during that time. When the parties quit working together, Gutkowski sued, contending that he had been promised an ownership share in YES as part of the compensation for his work. While he was a paid consultant, he was not given a share of YES or hired as a regular executive. He contended that, by industry standards, a reasonable value for his services would be a 2 to 3 percent ownership share. There was no written contract for such a share, but Gutkowski claimed he was due that to prevent unjust enrichment of the Yankees for exploiting his expertise. Does Gutkowski have a good claim for payment based on quantum meruit? Explain. [Gutkowski v. Steinbrenner, 680 F.Supp.2d 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)]