must focus on the “cause of action” or “claim for relief.” 42 P.S. § 22004(3). This narrows the scope of the-Court’s inquiry significantly. Taking these standards into account, the Court does not hesitate to conclude that Mullin’s argument fails to meet the high threshold for'nonrecognition on public policy grounds. Lloyd’s cause of action in the English Action was for breach of contract. There is no support for any contention that a cause of action for breach of contract is repugnant to Pennsylvania public policy. See Turner, 303 F.3d at 333 (affirming recognition of judgment obtained by Lloyds against a Name, and rejecting argument that breach of contract cause of action contravenes Texas public policy); Southwest Livestock & Trucking Co. v. Ramon, 169 F.3d 317, 321 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); cf. J.F.Walker Co., Inc. v. Excalibur Oil
recognizing a cause of action under texas law for misappropriation holding that a promissory note is not enforceable against a party who signed the deed of trust but did not sign the promissory note inasmuch as promissory notes and deeds of trust are separate legal documents with unique purposes holding cause of action for collection on a promissory note is not repugnant to texas public policy holding that fraudulent collection on promissory note was reasonably related to breach of contract claim 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