DENNIS JACOBS
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18 day of March, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
Circuit Judges,
NELSON S. ROMÁN,
District Judge.
FOR APPELLANTS:
STUART A. SMITH, New York, New
York.
FOR APPELLEES:
BERTRAND C. SELLIER (Law Office
of Daniel J. Rothstein, P.C., on
the brief), Rottenberg Lipman
Rich, P.C., New York, New York,
for Appellee Alexander Esin.
W. GORDON DOBIE (Thomas J.
Quigley and Nicholas R. Alioto,
on the brief), Winston & Strawn
LLP, New York, New York, for
Appellees Gorsoan Limited and
Vitaly Sirotkin.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Rigroup LLC and Janna Bullock appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.) dismissing her complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
We review a district court's decision to dismiss by reason of forum non conveniens for abuse of discretion. Pollex Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64, 70 (2d Cir. 2003). A district court's forum non conveniens analysis must follow the three-step process outlined in Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001):
At step one, a court determines the degree of deference properly accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum. At step two, it considers whether the alternative forum
proposed by the defendants is adequate to adjudicate the parties' dispute. Finally, at step three, a court balances the private and public interests implicated in the choice of forum.
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc.,
416 F.3d 146, 153 (2d Cir. 2005). The district court's well-reasoned decision follows this framework and adequately balanced the interests at stake. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on the ground of
forum non conveniens. Because Russia provides a more-convenient forum, the district court also appropriately denied the plaintiffs' request for limited jurisdictional discovery.
For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in the appellants' other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK