Rigroup LLC, Bullock v. Trefonisco Mgmt. Ltd.

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

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,
4 on the 18th day of March, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 Circuit Judges,
9
10 NELSON S. ROMÁN,
11 District Judge.*
12
13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
14 RIGROUP LLC, JANNA BULLOCK,
15 Plaintiff-Appellants,
16
17 -v.- 13-2572
18
19 TREFONISCO MANAGEMENT LIMITED,
20 CONFLICT.NET.RU, AKA Limited Liability
21 Company KONFKLIKT.NET.RU, ALEXANDER
22 ESIN, A. V. BELOV, JOHN DOES, 1-9,

*
The Honorable Nelson S. Román, United States District
Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by
designation.
1
 1 GORSOAN LIMITED, VITALY SIROTKIN, JOHN
2 DOES, 1-7,
3 Defendant-Appellees.
4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
5
6 FOR APPELLANTS: STUART A. SMITH, New York, New
7 York.
8
9 FOR APPELLEES: BERTRAND C. SELLIER (Law Office
10 of Daniel J. Rothstein, P.C., on
11 the brief), Rottenberg Lipman
12 Rich, P.C., New York, New York,
13 for Appellee Alexander Esin.
14
15 W. GORDON DOBIE (Thomas J.
16 Quigley and Nicholas R. Alioto,
17 on the brief), Winston & Strawn
18 LLP, New York, New York, for
19 Appellees Gorsoan Limited and
20 Vitaly Sirotkin.
21
22 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
23 Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.).
24
25 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
26 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
27 AFFIRMED.
28
29 Rigroup LLC and Janna Bullock appeal from the judgment
30 of the United States District Court for the Southern
31 District of New York (Furman, J.) dismissing her complaint
32 on the ground of forum non conveniens. We assume the
33 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
34 procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
35
36 We review a district court’s decision to dismiss by
37 reason of forum non conveniens for abuse of discretion.
38 Pollex Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64, 70
39 (2d Cir. 2003). A district court’s forum non conveniens
40 analysis must follow the three-step process outlined in
41 Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.
42 2001):
43
44 At step one, a court determines the degree of deference
45 properly accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum. At
46 step two, it considers whether the alternative forum

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

3