here, and certainly not to the degree that the claims would be preempted by Section 301. The issues raised by the lawsuit appear to center not on whether the players violated the contracts, but instead on what role, if any, the defendants played in the players’ already-acknowledged violation of the agreement. The resolution of the claims will depend on purely factual questions relating to the conduct and motivations of the defendants, “separate and distinct from those involving the construction or interpretation of the agreement.” Kresse v. City of Hialeah, 539 So.2d 534, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Sw. Gulfcoast, Inc. v. Allan, 513 So.2d 219, 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), receded from in part on other grounds, Fisher v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 827 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Of course, as the factual record develops,
holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding that there was no preemption where it was not shown that resort to an interpretation of the labor contract itself is necessary to define the state right being asserted