85198, 2005 WL 1484025, at *7 (Ohio Ct.App. June 23, 2005) (same). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state an independent claim for breach of contract separate from its claim for default on the Notes. The Amended Complaint reflects that Plaintiffs breach of contract claim is based on the same operative facts as its default claim. Specifically, the pleadings make clear that both causes of action are attempting to enforce the Notes, which are attached to the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff fails to allege facts of any agreement separate from the Notes and the purported extension of their maturity date. Finally, the language of the Notes reflect that they are, or at least purport to be, negotiable instruments within the meaning of Ohio law. Cf. Mohammad, 2012 WL 3132030, at *3-4 (<HOLDING>). Although a plaintiff is generally able to
holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract holding that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument as opposed to a contract for the purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations holding that a promissory note is not enforceable against a party who signed the deed of trust but did not sign the promissory note inasmuch as promissory notes and deeds of trust are separate legal documents with unique purposes holding that when the basis of the earlier suit was that the plaintiff had had defaulted on a promissory note and the claim in the instant action is whether that promissory note was valid the transaction test is met holding that fraudulent collection on promissory note was reasonably related to breach of contract claim