Background
Scarlett Pavlovich, a New Zealand citizen, sued Neil Gaiman in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging he sexually assaulted her while she worked for his family in New Zealand. Pavlovich claimed violations of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and Wisconsin state law. Gaiman moved to dismiss, arguing that New Zealand was the more convenient forum and that the federal statute did not apply extraterritorially. The district court dismissed the case under forum non conveniens without addressing the extraterritoriality question.
The court’s reasoning
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal for abuse of discretion. The court found New Zealand was an available and adequate forum because Gaiman consented to be sued there and punitive damages were available for outrageous conduct. The court balanced public and private interest factors, noting that the plaintiff was a foreigner suing far from home, which reduced the presumption in her favor. The court emphasized that New Zealand had a stronger connection to the dispute due to its unique accident-compensation scheme and that retaining jurisdiction would implicate concerns of international comity. The court assumed without deciding that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act applied extraterritorially but held that this did not outweigh the comity concerns.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.
Scarlett Pavlovich v. Neil Gaiman, No. 25-2754 (7th Cir. June 29, 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the use of forum non conveniens in cases involving foreign plaintiffs and foreign conduct, even when federal statutes with potential extraterritorial reach are involved. It signals that international comity and the existence of alternative remedial schemes abroad can outweigh U.S. policy interests in hearing such cases.