Pjsc Armada v. Alexy Kuzovkin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3343-23 PJSC ARMADA, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Respondent, v. ALEXY KUZOVKIN, ALLA ROITMAN, and YEFIM ROITMAN, Defendants-Respondents/ Cross-Appellants. _______________________________ Argued February 4, 2026 – Decided October 28, 2026 Before Judges Smith, Berdote Byrne and Jablonski. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-0197-19. Michael W. Sabo argued the cause for appellant/cross- respondent (Fox Rothschild LLP, attorneys; Ely Goldin and Corinne McCann Trainor, of counsel and on the briefs; Michael W. Sabo, on the briefs). Evan M. Newman argued the cause for respondent/ cross-appellant Alexy Kuzovkin (Jacobowitz Newman  Tversky LLP and Jeffrey Fleischmann (Fleischmann PLLC), attorneys; Jeffrey Fleischmann, on the briefs). Arthur M. Owens argued the cause respondents/cross- appellants Alla Roitman and Yefim Roitman (Clark Guldin Attorneys at Law, attorneys; Jonathan T. Guldin and Arthur M. Owens, of counsel and on the briefs). The opinion of the court was delivered by SMITH, J.A.D. This matter comes before us, for the second time, on plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's orders ending discovery on jurisdictional grounds and dismissing its complaint with prejudice. In five orders each dated May 14, 2024, the trial court: denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery; denied plaintiff's motion to extend discovery; denied plaintiff's request for letters rogatory; dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint against defendant Kuzovkin with prejudice; and dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint against co-defendants Alla and Yefim Roitman with prejudice. On appeal, plaintiff raises multiple claims, contending the trial court committed error when it: (1) violated the law of the case by failing to follow A-3343-23 2 the guidance set forth in our previous decision 1 and dismissed plaintiff's claims contrary to our instructions on remand; (2) improperly found no jurisdiction over Kuzovkin; (3) improperly applied the law of forum non conveniens to dismiss plaintiff's complaint; (4) improperly applied principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata to bar plaintiff's claims; and (5) abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's motions to compel discovery, extend discovery, and issue letters rogatory. The Roitman defendants cross-appeal, contending plaintiff's appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds and that the trial court erred by denying their application for counsel fees. For the reasons which follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and reverse in part the trial court's orders. We remand for further proceedings. I. A. We recite the factual summary set forth in Armada I. Plaintiff Armada is a public joint-stock company formed and registered in the Russian Federation, with its principal place of business in Moscow. Armada's stock trades on the Moscow Interbank Currency 1 PJSC Armada and Arsenal Advisor Ltd. v. Kuzovkin (Armada I), No. A-1893- 19 (App. Div. Sept. 3, 2021) (reversing trial court's dismissal and remanding for discovery on the questions of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens). A-3343-23 3 Exchange. At all relevant times, Armada served as the parent company of a consortium of companies which, at its peak in 2012, ranked as one of the top five software developers in Russia, with combined annual sales of approximately RUB 5.579 million (or $184 million under the 2012 prevailing exchange rate). Plaintiff Arsenal, a corporation formed under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, was the principal shareholder of Armada. Armada's other shareholders included major American, European, and Russian financial institutions. Defendant Kuzovkin led Armada's management team and, from 2012 to 2014, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to siphon money and technology from Armada for his personal benefit. Kuzovkin's illegal scheme involved: 1) the transfer of Armada funds to shell companies under the guise of software development contracts; 2) the formation of a competitor company, Programmy Produkt LLC, which poached business and employees from Armada; and 3) usurious lending between Armada and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries. Russian banks facilitated Kuzovkin's scheme by allowing him to transfer the profits of his schemes into shell companies and offshore accounts. In late 2013, Armada's shareholders commenced corporate and legal proceedings in Russia to oust Kuzovkin and the other Armada managers from their posts, eventually succeeding in 2014; however, Kuzovkin fled to Austria, leaving Armada's offices completely empty. Before fleeing to Austria, in the fall of 2013, Kuzovkin purchased $8,500,000 worth of real estate in Austria and Russia using the embezzled funds. This included an October 18, 2013 purchase of a luxury Moscow apartment owned by defendant Alla Roitman, a New Jersey citizen living in Mahwah. On that same A-3343-23 4 day, Kuzovkin also used embezzled funds to purchase an automobile parking spot associated with the apartment from Alla Roitman's father, Yefim Roitman, also a New Jersey citizen. In August 2017, plaintiffs obtained permission from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, to subpoena Alla Roitman for information related to her sale of the Moscow property to Kuzovkin. In response to the subpoena, Alla Roitman produced one document, an agreement of sale dated October 18, 2013. Her counsel explained a cash transaction facilitated the sale, with Kuzovkin dropping off cash in a Moscow safe deposit box and Alla Roitman retrieving it after the agreement of sale was signed. The agreement of sale, written in Russian, lists the sale price as ₽27,560,978 rubles, which equaled approximately $1,000,000 in United States dollars (USD). The fair market value of the apartment, however, was approximately $3,500,000 USD, and plaintiffs allege Kuzovkin actually paid the equivalent of $3,700,000 USD for the apartment and parking spot via the safety deposit box, with the sales agreement misrepresenting the sale price to conceal the embezzled funds Kuzovkin used to pay. Plaintiffs allege Alla and Yefim Roitman intentionally concealed the true sale price with Kuzovkin "to assist Kuzovkin in his embezzlement and siphoning of assets away from Armada and its shareholders." The Roitmans were aware of Kuzovkin's embezzlement and misconduct, and by assisting him with this fraudulent transfer, they became active participants in Kuzovkin's illegal scheme. [Armada I, slip op. at 2-5.] A-3343-23 5  B. On January 9, 2019, Armada and Arsenal Advisor LTD sued defendants Kuzovkin and the Roitmans. They asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent transfer, civil conspiracy, and violation of New Jersey's racketeering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:41 - 2. The complaint outlined Kuzovkin's alleged theft of corporate funds, assets, and business opportunities, and his alleged conspiracy with the Roitmans to launder some of the stolen funds through a Russian real estate transaction, the proceeds of which the Roitmans repatriated to New Jersey. The trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e), with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed, and we reversed, holding the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice before any discovery was conducted on the questions of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens . Armada I, slip op. at 2. Focusing on the Roitman defendants and the issue of forum non conveniens, we held the trial court "mistakenly exercised its discretion by prematurely considering the public and private interest factors, rather than permitting discovery." Id. at 13. We concluded that it was "not obvious from the face of plaintiffs' complaint" that the Roitman defendants would be presented with a "grossly unfair burden" to litigate this matter in their A-3343-23 6 home forum of New Jersey. Id. at 12. We also concluded that Russia was likely not an adequate forum because it was unclear whether the Roitmans were amenable to service in Russia, or that Russian law would offer a satisfactory remedy for plaintiffs' claims. Id. at 12-13. Turning to the question of personal jurisdiction over Kuzovkin, we concluded the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, and that the trial court erred by finding it lacked jurisdiction over Kuzovkin without the benefit of any discovery. Id. at 13-18. As for Kuzovkin's alleged contacts with New Jersey, we noted: The complaint alleges Kuzovkin conspired with New Jersey residents, which necessarily would involve contacts and communications extending into New Jersey. Indeed, plaintiffs attached a letter from the Russian real estate agency that handled the sale of the Moscow apartment and parking space, which states, "All material terms of the transactions, including the price of real estate objects . . . were determined by the parties on their own." These facts, if true, may be sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over Kuzovkin. Additionally, plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint alleges Kuzovkin frequently travelled to the United States, including New Jersey, to publicize Armada and seek capital from the U.S. investment community and met with brokers in Jersey City. The motion court should have allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to cure its jurisdictional defects. These facts too, if A-3343-23 7  true, may be sufficient to establish our courts' jurisdiction over Kuzovkin. At this stage, however, we do not know the veracity of the facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. Discovery is necessary to resolve the disputed jurisdictional issues. [Id. at 16-18.] We concluded plaintiff's claims against the Roitmans for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and racketeering included allegations sufficient to survive defendants' Rule 4:6-2(e) motions. Id. at 18-28. On remand, we directed that plaintiffs be permitted to file an amended complaint. Id. at 28. We also concluded that the trial court properly dismissed the claims of co- plaintiff Arsenal, an Armada shareholder, because it lacked standing. Armada I, slip op. at 26-27. On remand, we directed that plaintiffs be permitted to amend their complaint to plead additional facts alleging special injury to Arsenal. Id. at 28. On remand, Armada filed an amended complaint, again naming Kuzovkin and the Roitmans as defendants.2 Armada asserted causes of action against all defendants for conversion (count three), civil conspiracy (count four), a demand 2 Arsenal is not a plaintiff in the amended complaint. A-3343-23 8 for an accounting, tracing, and imposition of a constructive trust (count five), and violation of New Jersey's racketeering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2 (count six). Armada alleged breach of fiduciary duty against Kuzovkin (count one). Solely against the Roitmans, Armada only alleged aiding and abetting Kuzovkin's breach of fiduciary duty (count two). Kuzovkin moved to dismiss the claims for conversion. He also moved for an accounting, tracing, and imposition of a constructive trust, and to limit discovery to jurisdictional issues. Plaintiff cross-moved for sanctions. The court denied both motions and issued case management orders dated June 16, 2022, and November 29, 2022, which established various discovery deadlines, with a discovery end date of July 5, 2023. Armada then served written discovery on Kuzovkin, and the Roitmans, including requests for production of documents and written interrogatories . Each defendant responded to the discovery requests served on them. The record shows that, as part of discovery, Kuzovkin produced: translated personal income certificates for 2012 and 2013; translated financial statements for Armada for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and a partial financial statement from 2013; untranslated foreign language documents; and travel-related documents and information. A-3343-23 9  Plaintiff challenged the responses as deficient, citing, among other things, defendants' failure to produce certain documents and refusal to submit to depositions. At a case management conference on January 26, 2023, the parties disputed whether defendants had produced responsive discovery, including on the question of jurisdiction. Finding discovery complete, the judge stated there's been Certifications of Completeness by the defendants and I'm not ordering them to do anything. And if they wish to get a motion to compel I'm happy that the defendants are in full compliance with their discovery obligations. The discovery will continue and then I'm sure some . . . judge . . . after [the discovery end date] will get a motion from the defendants and we can see if things change. On February 22, 2023, at a case management conference before a second judge, plaintiff argued that jurisdictional discovery was incomplete. The second judge directed plaintiff to move to compel discovery and directed defendants to move for dismissal. Defendants complied and further moved for counsel fees. Plaintiff opposed defendants' motion to dismiss and cross-moved, seeking A-3343-23 10 additional discovery, extension of the discovery deadline, and issuance of letters rogatory.3 A third judge heard argument and granted, with prejudice, defendants' motions to dismiss. The judge next denied plaintiff's motions to compel and extend discovery and further denied the Roitmans' motion for attorney's fees and costs. The court outlined its findings supporting the dismissal order in a written statement of reasons, finding that: (1) plaintiff's claims were directly related to claims already litigated in Russia; (2) it did not have jurisdiction, because New Jersey was an inappropriate forum to litigate plaintiff's claims under principles of forum non conveniens; (3) it lacked personal jurisdiction over Kuzovkin, either general or specific, because his "singular" interaction with the Roitmans "was not continuous, systematic, or purposeful to satisfy the requirement of minimum contacts"; (4) as an alternative grounds for dismissal, principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the underlying claims against Kuzovkin 3 Letters rogatory, or letters of request, are "document[s] issued by one court to a foreign court, requesting that the foreign court (1) take evidence from a specific person within the foreign jurisdiction or serve process on an individual or corporation within the foreign jurisdiction and (2) return the testimony or proof of service for use in a pending case." Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). A-3343-23 11 and the Roitmans; and (5) plaintiff's claims against the Roitmans failed pursuant to the economic loss doctrine. Armada appealed. II. When considering the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), our review is de novo, with no deference afforded to the trial court's determination. Pace v. Hamilton Cove, 258 N.J. 82, 95-96 (2024) (citing Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, 246 N.J. 157, 171 (2021)). Our inquiry is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, reading the complaint liberally, and giving plaintiff every reasonable inference of fact. Mack-Cali Realty Corp. v. State, 250 N.J. 550, 553 (2022); Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 107 (2019); Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 452 (2013); Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989). We approach Rule 4:6-2(e) motions "with great caution," and we grant them sparingly. Printing Mart- Morristown, 116 N.J. at 771-72. That said, a complaint should be dismissed if it states no valid claim, and discovery would not give rise to one. Pace, 258 N.J. at 96; Baskin, 246 N.J. at 171. A-3343-23 12  "Appellate review of a [trial court's] ruling on jurisdiction is plenary because the question of jurisdiction is a question of law." Rippon v. Smigel, 449 N.J. Super. 344, 358 (App. Div. 2017) (citing Mastondrea v. Occidental Hotels Mgmt., S.A., 391 N.J. Super. 261, 268 (App. Div. 2007)). However, any factual findings on the issue of jurisdiction are entitled to a more deferential standard of review, to determine whether they "are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record." D.T. v. Archdiocese of Phila., 260 N.J. 27, 41 (2025) (quoting Mastondrea, 391 N.J. Super. at 268). A trial court's order dismissing a complaint based on forum non conveniens "should not be overturned unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown." Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 364. "[A]pplication of this equitable doctrine is left to the sound discretion of the trial court," so "considerable deference must be paid to the court's decision." Yousef v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 205 N.J. 543, 557 (2011). Nevertheless, "there are clearly defined guidelines that channel the discretion of our courts." Ibid. The doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) present issues of law. Selective Ins. Co. v. McAllister, 327 N.J. Super. 168, 173 (App. Div. 2000). Our review of the trial court's orders involving these doctrines is de novo. Ibid. A-3343-23 13  We employ an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's order for sanctions. R. 4:5-1(b)(2); see Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds and Reynolds, Co., 207 N.J. 428, 445 (2011); Karpovich v. Barbarula, 150 N.J. 473, 483 (1997). III. A. Plaintiff claims the court's dismissal orders are inconsistent with our decision in Armada I. There, we held the dismissals on jurisdictional grounds should be without prejudice and that plaintiff was entitled to jurisdictional discovery. Armada I, slip op. at 8-9. Plaintiff argues that at this stage of discovery, nothing in the record establishes a lack of personal jurisdiction over Kuzovkin or that New Jersey is an inconvenient forum. Plaintiff therefore contends that the court's dismissal with prejudice violates the law of the case.4 We agree. The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary doctrine that "operates to prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue." In re Est. of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008). Thus, "[f]or the determination of an issue to constitute 4 We consider only the law of the case here, and we address plaintiff's arguments concerning jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and discovery separately. A-3343-23 14 the law of the case . . . the issue must have been contested and decided." Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 (1991). Trial courts may not disregard the holding of a higher court. On remand, the trial court must comply with our directions, without deviation. Park Crest Cleaners, LLC v. A Plus Cleaners & Alterations Corp., 458 N.J. Super. 465, 472 (App. Div. 2019); Tomaino v. Burman, 364 N.J. Super. 224, 232-33 (App. Div. 2003); In re Application of Plainfield-Union Water Co., 14 N.J. 296, 303 (1954). We apply this well-settled principle. In Armada I, we stated that dismissal with prejudice requires a disposition on the merits. Id. at 2, 8. Dismissals for lack of personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, which relate to the court's procedural inability to hear a case, "should be without prejudice, affording litigants the ability to amend their pleadings to cure jurisdictional defects." Id. at 8-9 (citing R. 4:37-2(d)); Egg Harbor Care Ctr. v. Scheraldi, 455 N.J. Super. 343, 355-56 (App. Div. 2018); Exxon Rsch. & Eng'g Co. v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 341 N.J. Super. 489, 519 (App. Div. 2001). Consequently, in Armada I we held that the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Armada I, slip op. at 8. We further held the trial court prematurely dismissed the claims against Kuzovkin for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the claims against the Roitmans on the ground of A-3343-23 15 forum non conveniens. Id. at 2-3. We stated that the trial court "should have permitted discovery on the questions of personal jurisdiction and forum on conveniens." Ibid. We also rejected the court's dismissal of the aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 to -6.2, claims against the Roitmans under Rule 4:6-2(e). Id. at 21-26. Having reached these conclusions, we reversed the judgment of dismissal. Id. at 30. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the trial court, specifically the two case management judges, did not deviate from the law of the case. However, certain discovery on the issues we identified in Armada I went unaddressed. The motion judge, new to the case and presented with defendants' preemptory dismissal motions, elected to deny plaintiff further discovery. These orders thwarted our remand instructions and cut short the process for gathering additional facts relevant to jurisdiction, forum selection, and other grounds the court used to justify dismissal. We conclude that it was a mistaken exercise of discretion by the motion court to cut off discovery prematurely, before the clearly identified jurisdiction and forum selection questions outlined in Armada I could be resolved by relevant discovery. The motion court's attempt to analyze dispositive questions A-3343-23 16 of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, collateral estoppel and res judicata without the more fulsome factual record we envisioned in Armada I was error. We turn to the merits of the motion judge's various grounds for dismissal. B. Plaintiff contends the motion court erred when it found it lacked jurisdiction over Kuzovkin. We consider the relevant law. Our courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent consistent with due process, that is, to the utmost limits permitted under the United States Constitution. R. 4:4-4(b)(1); Zahl v. Eastland, 465 N.J. Super. 79, 92 (App. Div. 2020); Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 360; Avdel Corp. v. Mecure, 58 N.J. 264, 268 (1971). An assertion of personal jurisdiction does not violate the Due Process Clause if the defendant has "certain minimum contacts" with the forum state, "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)); Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 322 (1989). This is not a mechanical test, nor a matter of counting contacts with the forum state; instead, it is fact-specific A-3343-23 17 inquiry, conducted on a case-by-case basis. Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319; Shah v. Shah, 184 N.J. 125, 138 (2005). "[T]he requisite quality and quantum of contacts is dependent on whether general or specific jurisdiction is asserted, that is, whether the defendant is subject to any claim that may be brought against him in the forum state whether or not related to or arising out of the contacts themselves, i.e., general jurisdiction, or whether the claim is related to or arises out of the contacts in the forum, i.e., specific jurisdiction." Citibank, N.A. v. Est. of Simpson, 290 N.J. Super. 519, 526-27 (App. Div. 1996). General jurisdiction exists if defendant engages in "continuous and systematic activities in the forum." FDASmart, Inc. v. Dishman Pharms. & Chems., Ltd., 448 N.J. Super. 195, 202 (App. Div. 2016). It is a difficult standard to meet, requiring extensive contacts between the defendant and the forum. Id. at 202-03. Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises directly out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, provided the defendant has "minimum contacts" with it. Waste Mgmt. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 106, 119 (1994) (quoting Lebel, 115 N.J. at 322). The specific jurisdiction minimum contacts inquiry focuses on whether defendants engaged in purposeful conduct A-3343-23 18 directed toward the forum state, to avail themselves of some benefit in the forum state, such that a defendant could reasonably expect to be hauled into court in that jurisdiction. Waste Mgmt., 138 N.J. at 119-21. However, "[t]here is no requirement that the defendant ever be physically present in the forum state." Baanyan Software Servs., Inc. v. Kuncha, 433 N.J. Super. 466, 475 (App. Div. 2013). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction and is entitled to discovery on the issue. Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 359. Following discovery, if the issue of jurisdiction cannot be resolved based upon pleadings and certifications, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. Ibid. "If plaintiff successfully demonstrates the existence of the requisite minimum contacts, then a further determination must be made whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the [defendant] would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Mastondrea, 391 N.J. Super. at 269. Rule 4:6-2(b) permits a defendant to file a pre-answer motion to dismiss based upon "lack of jurisdiction over the person." A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction presents a mixed question of law and fact. Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 359. "Presented with a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of A-3343-23 19 jurisdiction, a trial court must make findings of the 'jurisdictional facts,' because disputed 'jurisdictional allegations cannot be accepted on their face . . ." Ibid. We conclude the motion court correctly determined that it lacked general jurisdiction over Kuzovkin. Even when we credit plaintiff's amended complaint allegations, there is insufficient evidence to show that Kuzovkin had continuous and systematic contacts with the State of New Jersey. The court appropriately dismissed plaintiff's claims against Kuzovkin which were unrelated to his transactions with the Roitmans. Plaintiff alleges Kuzovkin visited New Jersey in the past, and that he intentionally engaged with the Russian American community in New Jersey. Plaintiff further alleges that Kuzovkin specifically conspired with the Roitmans to launder money that he embezzled from Armada through an all-United States currency real estate transaction, with the money repatriated to New Jersey. If true, these allegations may represent minimum contacts sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over Kuzovkin with respect to plaintiff's Roitman- related claims. If Kuzovkin purposefully directed money laundering activities in New Jersey and conspired with New Jersey residents, expecting his co - conspirators to launder funds through the state, then he could reasonably expect to be hauled into court in New Jersey. Lebel, 115 N.J. at 327-28. Our legislature A-3343-23 20 has articulated a clear interest in preventing both residents and non-residents from using the State as a place to launder embezzled funds. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-4; Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd v. S.A.C. Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 450 N.J. Super. 1, 37-40 (App. Div. 2017). Defendants deny any direct interactions relating to the real estate sale, and Kuzovkin denies any calls or emails into New Jersey. The Roitmans deny repatriating any real estate sale proceeds to New Jersey. However, these denials reveal factual disputes which must be resolved through additional discovery before the trial court can make findings and reach a properly supported conclusion on a motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth here, we affirm the court's order dismissing Kuzovkin with prejudice for lack of general jurisdiction. However, we vacate the court's order dismissing Kuzovkin with prejudice to the extent it is grounded in lack of specific jurisdiction. Finally, we also vacate the court's orders denying plaintiff's motions to: extend discovery; obtain additional discovery; and secure issuance of letters rogatory. C. Plaintiff next contends the trial court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. It argues that: New Jersey is an A-3343-23 21 appropriate forum; there is no adequate alternative forum in Russia; and both public and private interest factors favor the case being heard in New Jersey . We note that "[t]he temptation to dismiss for forum non conveniens may be greatest when a suit is difficult and complex. At those times, however, courts must be most vigilant to make certain the plaintiff's choice of forum is demonstrably inappropriate before granting a dismissal." Kurzke v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 164 N.J. 159, 172 (2000). When considering questions of forum non conveniens, it is well-settled that "the plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to preferential consideration by the court." Yousef, 205 N.J. at 557. Additionally, "any alternative forum must be adequate, and the defendant must be 'amenable to process' in that forum." Ibid. (quoting Wangler v. Harvey, 41 N.J. 277, 286 (1963)); see also Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 365 ("An adequate forum is one where the defendant is amenable to service of process, and where the subject matter of the dispute may be litigated."). Finally, a court analyzing forum non conveniens should consider the private-interest and public-interest factors set forth in Gulf Oil Corp v. Bernard, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947). Yousef, 205 N.J. at 558. The private-interest factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (2) the availability of compulsory process for attendance of A-3343-23 22  unwilling witnesses and the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses, (3) whether a view of the premises is appropriate to the action and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of the case "easy, expeditious and inexpensive," including the enforceability of the ultimate judgment. [Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 365 (quoting Aguerre v. Schering-Plough Corp., 393 N.J. Super. 459, 474 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508)).] The public interest factors are: (1) the administrative difficulties which follow from having litigation "pile up in congested centers" rather than being handled at its origin, (2) the imposition of jury duty on members of a community having no relation to the litigation, (3) the local interest in the subject matter such that affected members of the community may wish to view the trial and (4) the local interest "in having localized controversies decided at home." [Ibid. (quoting Aguerre, 393 N.J. Super. at 474 (quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-509)).] "[T]he treatment of the factors is meant to be qualitative rather than quantitative." Ibid. "The value ascribed to any particular factor may vary depending on the circumstances of each case." Yousef, 205 N.J. at 558. Thus, "a court should not dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens unless the choice of forum is 'demonstrably inappropriate.'" Id. at 557 (quoting Kurzke, 164 N.J. at 171-72 (2000)). "Defendant, of course, bears the burden of A-3343-23 23 persuasion on all elements of the analysis, and this burden is a heavy one." Varo v. Owens-Illinois, 400 N.J. Super. 508, 519 (App. Div. 2008). We first turn to the Roitman defendants. New Jersey is the Roitmans' home. Witnesses and documentary evidence relating to plaintiff's RICO claims may well be found in New Jersey (the Roitmans, and their documents and records), Russia, and Austria (Kuzovkin, and his documents and records). Half of the participants in the alleged money laundering scheme reside in New Jersey. No jurisdiction would be more convenient to the Roitmans than New Jersey. See Varo, 400 N.J. Super. at 525. The parties have engaged in only limited discovery. At this stage of the litigation, the record is sparse in terms of facts supporting any difficulty in securing access to sources of proof from outside New Jersey. Indeed, the record shows that a significant amount of information has already been produced from overseas. Additionally, the Roitmans have not met their burden to show they are amenable to service of process in Russia —or any forum other than New Jersey—or that Russia would provide an adequate forum to redress the Roitmans' alleged violation of New Jersey law . We conclude the motion court committed error by ordering dismissal of the claims against the Roitmans. A-3343-23 24  We next consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Kuzovkin on forum non conveniens grounds. Plaintiff is a Russian corporation, located in Russia, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary and conversion against Kuzovkin. The record shows that plaintiff pursued similar arguments in Russian courts against managers other than Kuzovkin, and plaintiff was also involved with the filing of criminal charges against Kuzovkin in Russia. Because plaintiff can pursue claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion in Russia, we find no abuse of discretion in the motion court's order dismissing these claims on forum non conveniens grounds. However, at this procedural stage, the record does not support dismissal of plaintiff's New Jersey-based conspiracy and racketeering and related claims against Kuzovkin. New Jersey has a compelling interest in enforcing its racketeering laws and there has been no showing that another forum exists to enforce New Jersey law. Without further discovery, it is unclear whether there is specific jurisdiction over Kuzovkin with respect to these claims; and it is unclear whether plaintiff should be collaterally estopped with respect to any issues litigated in Russia. A-3343-23 25  D. Plaintiff next contends the motion court erred when it invoked the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as alternative bases for dismissing the complaint. The motion court concluded that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed on two primary grounds, forum non conveniens and lack of personal jurisdiction over Kuzovkin. However, the court also concluded the doctrines of the res judicata and collateral estoppel were alternative bases for dismissal. On res judicata, the court cited Watkins v. Resort International Hotel & Casino, Inc., 124 N.J. 398, 412 (1991) and relied upon the termination of Russian criminal proceedings to conclude that res judicata barred plaintiff's claims. The court stated: This court finds that the Watkins[] factors are easily established for this matter. The September 11, 2017, Award of Termination of the Criminal Case by the Senior Investigator for the Department of Internal Affairs in Russia issued a written decision dismissing a criminal invest