of prejudice" (quoting Rankin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 336 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2003))). 31 . 969F.2d585, 590 (7th Cir. 1992). 32 . Nat'l Found, for Cancer Research, 821 F.2d at 777. 33 . See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011); see also Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2304, 2309, 186 L.Ed.2d 417 (2013). 34 . Blood v. Kenneth Murray Ins., Inc., 68 P.3d 1251, 1255 (Alaska 2003) (citing Bd. of Educ., Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist. v. Ewig, 609 P.2d 10, 13 (Alaska 1980)); Midwest Window Sys., Inc. v. Amcor Indus., Inc., 630 F.2d 535, 536 (7th C ens & Minor Med., Inc. v. Innovative Mktg. & Distrib. Servs., 711 So.2d 176, 177 (Fla. Dist. App. 1998). 43 . See Midwest Window Sys., Inc., 630 F.2d at 536-37 (<HOLDING>); Blackburn v. Citifinancial, Inc., No.
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 holding cause of action for collection on a promissory note is not repugnant to texas public policy 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 failure to pay a debt due under a promissory note is a breach of contract claim under florida law