13-2572 Rigroup LLC, Bullock v. Trefonisco Mgmt. Ltd.



### 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 18 th** **day of March, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **Circuit Judges ,**  8 9 **NELSON S. ROMÁN,** 10 **District Judge**

**.** ***** 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 **RIGROUP LLC, JANNA BULLOCK,** 14 **Plaintiff-Appellants ,**  15 16 **-v.- 13-2572** 17 18 **TREFONISCO MANAGEMENT LIMITED,** 19 **CONFLICT.NET.RU, AKA Limited Liability** 20 **Company KONFKLIKT.NET.RU, ALEXANDER** 21 **ESIN, A. V. BELOV, JOHN DOES, 1-9,** 22

* The Honorable Nelson S. Román, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

1**GORSOAN LIMITED, VITALY SIROTKIN, JOHN** 1 **DOES, 1-7,** 2 **Defendant-Appellees**

**.** 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 4 5 **FOR APPELLANTS:** STUART A. SMITH, New York, New 6 York. 7 8 **FOR APPELLEES:** BERTRAND C. SELLIER (Law Office 9 of Daniel J. Rothstein, P.C., on 10 the brief ), Rottenberg Lipman 11 Rich, P.C., New York, New York, 12 forAppellee Alexander Esin. 13 14 W. GORDON DOBIE (Thomas J. 15 Quigley and Nicholas R. Alioto, 16 on the brief ), Winston & Strawn 17 LLP, New York, New York, for 18 Appellees Gorsoan Limited and 19 Vitaly Sirotkin. 20 21 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 22 Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J. ). 23 24 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 25 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 26 **AFFIRMED**

. 27 28 Rigroup LLC and Janna Bullock appeal from the judgment 29 of the United States District Court for the Southern 30 District of New York (Furman, J. ) dismissing her complaint 31 on the ground of forum non conveniens

. We assume the 32 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 33 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 34 35 We review a district court’s decision to dismiss by 36 reason of forum non conveniensfor abuse of discretion. 37 Pollex Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank , 329 F.3d 64, 70 38 (2d Cir. 2003). A district court’s forum non conveniens 39 analysis must follow the three-step process outlined in 40 Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp. , 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 41 2001): 42 43 At step one, a court determines the degree of deference 44 properly accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum. At 45 step two, it considers whether the alternative forum 46

2proposed by the defendants is adequate to adjudicate 1 the parties’ dispute. Finally, at step three, a court 2 balances the private and public interests implicated in 3 the choice of forum. 4 5 Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc. , 416 F.3d 146, 6 153 (2d Cir. 2005). The district court’s well-reasoned 7 decision follows this framework and adequately balanced the 8 interests at stake. The district court, therefore, did not 9 abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on the ground of 10 forum non conveniens . Because Russia provides a more11 convenient forum, the district court also appropriately 12 denied the plaintiffs’ request for limited jurisdictional 13 discovery. 14 15 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in the 16 appellants’ other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment 17 of the district court. 18 19 FOR THE COURT: 20 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 21 22 23 24 25

3