U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2014

Rigroup LLC, Bullock v. Trefonisco Mgmt. Ltd.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided March 18, 2014 · Jacobs, Pooler, Román

559 F. App'x 58

Counsel

Stuart A. Smith, New York, NY, for Appellants., Bertrand C. Sellier (Law Office of Daniel J. Rothstein, P.C., the brief), Rotten-berg Lipman Rich, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee Alexander Esin., W. Gordon Dobie (Thomas J. Quigley and Nicholas R. Alioto, on the brief), Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees Gorsoan Limited and Vitaly Si-rotkin.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

DeCicco v. Dynata, LLC (Conn. 2026)
Miller-Rich v. Altum Pharmaceuticals Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
Waheed v. Rentoulis (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc. d/b/a Thesis Nootropics Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
Rimu Capital Ltd. v. Ader (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
Edwards v. St. George's University (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
Zanghi v. Ritella (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
Ghorbani v. Goldman Sachs (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

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 conve-niens for abuse of discretion. Pollux 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 plaintiffs 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.