14-505

Peters v. UBS AG

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 19th 4 day of December, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, Jr.,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 FRANCES C. PETERS, 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 14-505

16

17 UBS AG, a global banking entity

18 incorporated in Switzerland, AKA UBA

19 SA,

20 Defendant-Appellee.

21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

22

23 FOR APPELLANT: LESLIE TRAGER, New York, New

24 York.

25

26 FOR APPELLEE: MARK G. HANCHET (with

27 Christopher J. Houpt, Robert W.

1
1 Hamburg, on the brief), Mayer

2 Brown LLP, New York, New York.

3

4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

5 Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.).

6

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

8 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

9 AFFIRMED. 

10

11 Plaintiff-Appellant Frances C. Peters appeals from the

12 judgment of the United States District Court for the

13 Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.), dismissing the

14 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

15 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

16 presented for review. 

17

18 Peters previously sued Defendant-Appellee UBS AG

19 (“UBS”) in New York state court, alleging that UBS had

20 misappropriated funds held in trust for her. After the

21 state court dismissed on the grounds of forum non

22 conveniens, identifying Switzerland as an adequate

23 alternative forum, Peters brought this litigation in the

24 Southern District of New York, alleging substantively the

25 same causes of action based on substantively the same facts. 

26 The district court granted UBS’s motion to dismiss, holding

27 that the state court’s determination of forum non conveniens

28 applied to the federal litigation by way of collateral

29 estoppel.

30

31 “We review the district court’s dismissal of [an]

32 action on collateral estoppel grounds de novo.” Johnston v.

33 Arbitrium (Cayman Is.) Handels AG, 198 F.3d 342, 346 (2d

34 Cir. 1999).

35

36 “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party

37 from relitigating in a subsequent proceeding an issue of law

38 or fact that has already been decided in a prior

39 proceeding.” Boguslavsky v. Kaplan, 159 F.3d 715, 719-20

40 (2d Cir. 1998). Peters is collaterally estopped from

41 disputing the applicability of the doctrine of forum non

42 conveniens to this litigation, having fully litigated that

43 issue in state court, which decided the issue and

44 consequently granted UBS final judgment. Contrary to

45 Peters’ arguments on appeal, no exception or competing

46 equitable doctrine rescues her case from this result. See,

47 e.g., PenneCom B.V. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 372 F.3d

2
1 488, 493 (2d Cir. 2004); Khandhar v. Elfenbein, 943 F.2d

2 244, 249 (2d Cir. 1991).

3

4 Because we agree with the dismissal on collateral

5 estoppel grounds, we need not reach any alternative bases

6 for dismissal.

7

8 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

9 Peters’ other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of

10 the district court.

11

12 FOR THE COURT:

13 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

14

3