Global Ship Systems, LLC v. Riverhawk Group, LLC, 334 Ga. App. 860

Global Ship Systems, LLC (with related plaintiffs) sought financing for a Savannah shipyard; operational failures and foreclosure efforts followed.
Global Ship sued first in Chatham County (Oct. 2007) asserting injunctive relief, an accounting, and money damages for breaches of good faith/fiduciary duties; that action was voluntarily dismissed.
Global Ship filed a second, broader suit in Fulton County (Nov. 2008) adding plaintiffs/defendants and asserting 28 counts (breach of contract, fiduciary claims, fraud, tortious interference, etc.); the court granted partial judgment on the pleadings and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed.
One day before the six-month renewal period expired, Global Ship filed a third action in Chatham County identical to the second action.
RiverHawk defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing OCGA § 9-11-41(a)(3) barred the third suit as an adjudication on the merits; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the third action.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the third action barred by Georgia’s voluntary-dismissal/res judicata rules because plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed two prior actions arising from the same subject matter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 9-11-41(a)(3) bars the third action when some plaintiffs in the third action were not parties to the first dismissal	Non-party plaintiffs (SIMS and individuals) mean the third suit is their second action and thus not barred	The presence of plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed both prior actions (Global Ship, GSS Operations, Creech) triggers § 9-11-41(a)(3) and bars the third action despite added plaintiffs	Held: § 9-11-41(a)(3) applies; dismissal by same plaintiffs in first two actions bars the third action; addition of new plaintiffs does not avoid the bar
Whether the first and second actions involve the same claims such that res judicata bars the third action	The first and second actions are factually/delineationally different; thus the third action asserts new claims	First action included money-damages claims for bad faith/fiduciary breaches arising from same financing facts; plaintiffs could have asserted all related claims earlier; OCGA §§ 9-11-41 and 9-12-40 bar reassertion	Held: Claims across the three actions arise from the same subject matter (initial financing and collapse); plaintiffs could have raised them earlier; res judicata bars the third action

Dillard Land Investments v. South Florida Investments, 320 Ga. App. 209 (plaintiff’s second voluntary dismissal operates as adjudication on the merits only when filed by the same plaintiff)
Citifinancial Svcs. v. Varner, 320 Ga. App. 170 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Global Ship Systems, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 292 Ga. App. 214 (background on equipment failures and related litigation)
Belco Elec. v. Bush, 204 Ga. App. 811 (OCGA § 9-11-41 prevents repeated filings against previously named defendants)
Young v. Rider, 208 Ga. App. 147 (OCGA § 9-11-41/9-2-61 govern dismissal/renewal of an action, not separate claims)
Fowler v. Vineyard, 261 Ga. 454 (Georgia res judicata rule; must assert all claims concerning same subject matter or they are barred)
Adams v. Tricord, LLC, 299 Ga. App. 310 (claims that could have been raised earlier are barred)
Southeastern Hose v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 167 Ga. App. 356 (distinguishing when actions predicated on distinct violations are not the same claim)
Gunby v. Simon, 277 Ga. 698 (identifies when different subject matters avoid preclusion)
Cartwright v. First Baptist Church of Keysville, 316 Ga. App. 299 (issue is whether claims could have been litigated earlier)
Phoenix Airline Svcs. v. Metro Airlines, 260 Ga. 584 (derivative/individual claim considerations)
Pinnacle Benning v. Clark Realty Capital, 314 Ga. App. 609 (standing/derivative action principles)