Background
Pavlovich, a New Zealand citizen now living in Scotland, worked as a live-in nanny for author Neil Gaiman and his family while they resided in New Zealand. Beginning in early 2022, Gaiman repeatedly sexually assaulted Pavlovich at his New Zealand home over a period of weeks. After the assaults ended, Pavlovich became suicidal and sought psychiatric care in New Zealand. She filed a criminal complaint with New Zealand authorities, but alleges they took no action because Gaiman’s wife refused to cooperate.
Pavlovich sued Gaiman in the Western District of Wisconsin in 2025, nearly three years later. She brought four federal claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—alleging sex trafficking, forced labor, trafficking of forced labor, and conspiracy—and five state-law claims including assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Gaiman had moved to Wisconsin and is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, though he is a UK citizen.
Gaiman moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that New Zealand is a more appropriate and convenient forum for the dispute. The district court agreed and dismissed without prejudice. Pavlovich appealed, contending the district court abused its discretion in dismissing federal claims that apply extraterritorially.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal under forum non conveniens, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court applied the two-part test for forum non conveniens: whether an alternative adequate forum exists, and whether that forum is more convenient and has a stronger connection to the dispute. The court found both prongs satisfied.
On adequacy, Pavlovich argued that New Zealand offers “no remedy at all” because its accident-compensation scheme provides only mental-health treatment (which she cannot access while living in Scotland) and imposes potentially prohibitive security requirements for litigants. The court disagreed, finding that punitive damages are available in New Zealand for “truly outrageous conduct” and constitute a sufficient remedy for forum non conveniens purposes. The court also held that discretionary security-cost requirements, even if substantial, do not necessarily render a forum inadequate, as other U.S. courts have upheld dismissals despite burdensome fee structures.
On the balance of factors, the court held that New Zealand has a substantially stronger connection to the dispute. While Pavlovich’s choice of forum normally receives deference, that presumption carries “little more than tie-breaker weight” when a foreign plaintiff sues a U.S. resident. Weighing the private factors (convenience for parties, access to witnesses and evidence), the court found New Zealand superior—the conduct occurred there, key witnesses are located there, and Gaiman and his wife both consented to jurisdiction there. On public-interest factors, the court emphasized international comity principles: New Zealand has a weighty public policy in applying its unique accident-compensation scheme to harms occurring on its soil, and retaining U.S. jurisdiction despite that interest would offend principles of international comity among nations. The court assumed without deciding that the Act applies extraterritorially but held that even so, comity concerns support dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- Forum non conveniens dismissals of federal statutory claims do not require that the statute apply only domestically; even extraterritorial statutes must yield to forum non conveniens when an adequate alternative forum exists with a stronger connection to the dispute.
- An alternative forum is “adequate” under forum non conveniens if it provides any remedy, even if more limited than available in the U.S.; punitive damages qualify as a remedy even though they differ in purpose from compensatory damages.
- International comity—mutual respect among nations for each other’s sovereign interests—weighs heavily in forum non conveniens balancing when the alternative forum has substantial connection to the conduct and public policy interests at stake.
- Foreign plaintiffs suing U.S. residents receive only marginal deference for their chosen forum; the balance of convenience and connections determines whether dismissal is appropriate.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the primacy of forum non conveniens doctrine over extraterritorial reach of federal statutes. While Congress’s intent to apply the Trafficking Victims Protection Act abroad is significant, courts need not honor that intent when doing so would disrespect the sovereignty and public-policy choices of foreign nations. The holding signals that extraterritorial statutes have limits in practice: victims of transnational wrongs may find themselves forced back to the country where the harm occurred, even if they have fled and established residence elsewhere, when that country offers any meaningful remedy and has stronger connections to the dispute.
The decision also underscores growing judicial attention to international comity as a limiting principle on U.S. judicial power. By invoking comity to support dismissal even under a federal statute, the court acknowledges that the U.S. legal system’s traditional receptiveness to forum non conveniens motions reflects not just practical convenience but also respect for the jurisdictional prerogatives of other nations. For plaintiffs with international claims, this means that proximity to defendants and statutory reach may matter less than the geographical and regulatory connection of the conduct itself.