2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-31-2014

Katherine Archut v. Ross University School of Vete

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-4377

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Katherine Archut v. Ross University School of Vete" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 1119.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 CORPORATION 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-01681)

District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper

________________

Submitted 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)

__________

OPINION1

__________

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 antidiscrimination laws did 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. See Archut 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.Ed.2d 535 (2010) (determining that absent, a “clear 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 explained 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

thorough 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 Memorandum and Order without further elaboration.