Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): but they do not require it. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Swan Landing’s motion to compel arbitration of the foreclosure count of the complaint. As to the other two counts of the Bank’s complaint, however, the result is different. The counts asserting claims under the note and guaranty are breach of contract counts, which allege that Swan Landing and Yazdani have failed to perform their respective obligations under those contracts by failing to make the required payments. Both counts seek awards of money damages due to the alleged nonpayment, including amounts for unpaid principal, interest, and late fees. Thus, both counts are seeking legal (as opposed to equitable) relief. See, e.g., Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363, 370, 94 S.Ct. 1723, 40 L.Ed.2d 198 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Cerrito v. Kovitch, 457 So.2d 1021, 1022 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing one definition of prosecution as used in section 1 of article 3837 is criminal action meaning the entire course of an action at law1  (B) holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law (C) recognizing that when a cause of action is reduced to a judgment the cause of action is merged into the judgment and thereafter only an action on the judgment exists (D) holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law (E) holding that  where an action is simply for the recovery  of a money judgment the action is one at law1  quoting whitehead v shattuck 138 us 146 151 11 sct 276 34 led 873 1891
Output (English): holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law