14-505 Peters v. UBS AG



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P** **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L** **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 19 th** **day of December, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, Jr.,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **FRANCES C. PETERS,** 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  13 14 **-v.- 14-505** 15 16 **UBS AG, a global banking entity** 17 **incorporated in Switzerland, AKA UBA** 18 **SA,** 19 **Defendant-Appellee**

**.** 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21 22 **FOR APPELLANT:** LESLIE TRAGER, New York, New 23 York. 24 25 **FOR APPELLEE:** MARK G. HANCHET (with 26 Christopher J. Houpt, Robert W. 27

1Hamburg, on the brief ), Mayer 1 Brown LLP, New York, New York. 2 3 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 4 Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J. ). 5 6 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 7 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 8 **AFFIRMED**

. 9 10 Plaintiff-Appellant Frances C. Peters appeals from the 11 judgment of the United States District Court for the 12 Southern District of New York (Crotty, J. ), dismissing the 13 complaint

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 15 presented for review. 16 17 Peters previously sued Defendant-Appellee UBS AG 18 (“UBS”) in New York state court, alleging that UBS had 19 misappropriated funds held in trust for her. After the 20 state court dismissed on the grounds of forum non 21 conveniens , identifying Switzerland as an adequate 22 alternative forum, Peters brought this litigation in the 23 Southern District of New York, alleging substantively the 24 same causes of action based on substantively the same facts. 25 The district court granted UBS’s motion to dismiss, holding 26 that the state court’s determination of forum non conveniens 27 applied to the federal litigation by way of collateral 28 estoppel. 29 30 “We review the district court’s dismissal of [an] 31 action on collateral estoppel grounds de novo .” Johnston v. 32 Arbitrium (Cayman Is.) Handels AG , 198 F.3d 342, 346 (2d 33 Cir. 1999). 34 35 “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party 36 from relitigating in a subsequent proceeding an issue of law 37 or fact that has already been decided in a prior 38 proceeding.” Boguslavsky v. Kaplan , 159 F.3d 715, 719-20 39 (2d Cir. 1998). Peters is collaterally estopped from 40 disputing the applicability of the doctrine of forum non 41 conveniens to this litigation, having fully litigated that 42 issue in state court, which decided the issue and 43 consequently granted UBS final judgment. Contrary to 44 Peters’ arguments on appeal, no exception or competing 45 equitable doctrine rescues her case from this result. See, 46 e.g. , PenneCom B.V. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. , 372 F.3d 47

2488, 493 (2d Cir. 2004); Khandhar v. Elfenbein , 943 F.2d 1 244, 249 (2d Cir. 1991). 2 3 Because we agree with the dismissal on collateral 4 estoppel grounds, we need not reach any alternative bases 5 for dismissal. 6 7 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 8 Peters’ other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of 9 the district court. 10 11 FOR THE COURT: 12 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 13 14

3