GIORGI GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. v. SMULSKI, 5:17-cv-04416

Plaintiffs (Giorgi Global Holdings, Inc., et al.) sued Defendants (Wieslaw Smulski, et al.) in the U.S. asserting RICO, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims arising from conduct after Smulski’s 2013 termination.
Related Polish litigation: Smulski sued Can-Pack in Poland in Jan. 2014 (356/14) for unpaid compensation and non‑compete payments; Can‑Pack sued Smulski in Mar. 2015 (727/15) over “Phantom Shares” payments and alleged disloyalty and misappropriation.
Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under res judicata, arguing the Polish judgments dispose of Counts 1–5 and 7; they alternatively sought a stay based on other pending Polish actions (327/14 and 1266/19).
The U.S. court previously preserved email evidence in the U.S.; Plaintiffs contend critical evidence is only available in the United States and was not accessible in the Polish proceedings.
The Court denied recognition of the Polish judgments on comity grounds because Plaintiffs lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate in Poland given U.S.-located evidence; it also found res judicata inapplicable because the causes of action differ.
The Court denied the stay: the U.S. claims (including RICO and domestic injuries) are not parallel to the Polish proceedings, and exceptional circumstances to abstain were not shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Polish judgments have res judicata effect in U.S. suit	U.S. claims are distinct (RICO, domestic injuries); Polish cases don’t bar U.S. claims	Polish judgments dispose of the same events and thus bar the U.S. claims	Res judicata does not apply; causes of action differ and claims are not the same
Whether U.S. court should recognize Polish judgments under international comity	Recognition is inappropriate because Plaintiffs lacked access to U.S. evidence in Poland	Comity supports recognizing final foreign judgments and precluding relitigation	Denied: Plaintiffs lacked a "full and fair" opportunity in Poland (key evidence in U.S.), so comity is inappropriate
Whether Poland was an adequate forum (full and fair trial)	Poland was inadequate because critical emails/evidence preserved in U.S. were inaccessible abroad	Poland was a competent forum that adjudicated related issues	Found inadequate: inability to access preserved U.S. evidence meant no full and fair opportunity in Poland
Whether to stay U.S. proceedings based on parallel Polish litigation	U.S. case should proceed; Polish cases do not cover RICO/domestic claims	Stay warranted because related Polish cases may resolve overlapping issues	Denied: cases are not parallel (different parties, claims, injuries); no exceptional circumstances to abstain

Hoffman v. Nordic Naturals, 837 F.3d 272 (3d Cir.) (res judicata requires final judgment, same parties/privities, same cause of action)
In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2008) (same-cause-of-action test for res judicata)
Derr v. Swarek, 766 F.3d 430 (5th Cir.) (recognition of foreign judgments is a matter of comity)
Somportex Ltd. v. Phila. Chewing Gum Corp., 453 F.2d 435 (3d Cir. 1971) (defining comity and U.S. courts’ discretion to recognize foreign judgments)
Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d 133 (2d Cir.) (U.S. courts may decline to recognize foreign judgments on comity grounds)
U.S. ex rel. Saroop v. Garcia, 109 F.3d 165 (3d Cir.) (criteria for recognizing foreign judgments: full and fair trial, absence of fraud, no special reasons to deny recognition)
In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., 347 F. Supp. 3d 434 (N.D. Cal.) (consideration of forum adequacy when evaluating comity)
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (district courts’ power to stay proceedings)
IFC Interconsult, AG v. Safeguard Intern. Partners, LLC, 438 F.3d 298 (3d Cir.) (abstention from exercising jurisdiction requires exceptional circumstances)
Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int'l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (parallel foreign litigation and abstention standards)