2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-31-2014 

# K a the r ine Ar ch ut v

. R o s s U ni ve rsit y S cho ol of V

et e P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 13-4377

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" K a the r ine Ar ch ut v

. R os s U niv e r sit y S choo l of V

e t e " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1119. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/1119

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13

- 4377

____________ KATHERINE ARCHUT, Appellant
v. ROSS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE; DEVRY, INC., a corporation of the state of Delaware, ABC CORPO RATION 1

- 5, being fictitiously named subsidiaries of DeVry, Inc.

________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3

- 10

- cv - 0 1681 ) District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper

________________ Sub mitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 11, 2014 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge , SMITH and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: October 31 , 2014 )

__________ OPINION 1



### __________ McKEE, Chief Judge
.

1 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

### 2 Katherine Archut appeals the dismissal of her federal and state claims she brought alleging violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and breach of contract. The district court held that federal and state anti

discrimination laws d id not apply extraterritorially and dismissed the remaining breach of contract claim under the theory of forum non conveniens . We will affirm. In a thorough and well

- reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Cooper explained why she was granting summary judgment on Archut’s federal and state anti

- discrimination claims. Se e Arc hut v. Ross Univ. Sch. of Veterinary Med. , No. 10

– 1681(MLC), 2012 WL 5867148 (D.N.J. Nov. 19, 2012). The court explained its conclusion that the statutes those claims are based upon do not apply extraterritorially, and we can add little to that court’s analysis and discussion. See Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. , 561 U.S. 247, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 2878, 177 L. E d.2d 535 (2010) (determining that a bsent, a “cl ear indication of an exterritorial application, [the statute] has none.” )
. Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the aforementioned Memorandum Opinion of the district court. Judge Cooper also carefully and completely exp lained her reasons for granting Ross’s motion to dismiss the remaining breach of contract claim on the grounds of forum non conveniens
. See Archut v. Ross Univ. Sch. of Veterinary Med. , No. 10

– 1681(MLC), 2013 WL 5913675 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2013). In her

### 3 thor ough opinion, Judge Cooper explained that she was dismissing the contract claim because it arises from conduct that occurred in St. Kitts. As the judge explained, St. Kitts is therefore the appropriate forum to litigate the alleged contract breach. Since “the law of St. Kitts likely governs the dispute, trial of the case in a St. Kitts forum will be much easier and expeditious.” Id. at *15. Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memo randum and Order without further elaboration.