antithetical to the purpose of the Act.” Id. (quoting Brennan v. Heard, 491 F.2d 1, 4 (5th Cir. 1974), rev’d on other grounds by McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988)). Second, for the most part, Plaintiffs FLSA claim and Defendants’ Counterclaim do not involve the same facts, and will not rely on similar witnesses or evidence. To prove an FLSA violation, Plaintiff will need to present evidence of her employment, hours worked, and pay received. See Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, 551 F.3d 1233, 1277 n.68 (11th Cir. 2008). In contrast, to prove their Counterclaim, Defendants will need to present evidence of a valid contract, a material breach, and damages. See First Nat. Bank of Kissimmee v. Dunham, 342 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue that the Court should
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 failure to pay a debt due under a promissory note is a breach of contract claim under florida law holding that failure to pay obligations under a contract is a material breach as a matter of law when parties explicitly state in the contract that failure to pay warrants termination holding that fraudulent collection on promissory note was reasonably related to breach of contract claim holding that the issue of whether a contract exists under promissory estoppel is grounded in contract law