1:25-cv-10263•Pavlovich v. Palmer
Full text
Scarlet
Amanda
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
)
Pavlovich, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v . ) Civil Action
) 25-10263-NMG
Palmer, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
No.
This case arises from claims of human trafficking and
conspiracy brought by plaintiff , Scarlett Pavlovich (" plaintiff "
or " Pavlovich " ) , against Amanda Palmer (" defendant " or
" Palmer " ) , the former wife of her alleged abuser, Neil Gaiman
( "Gaiman " ) Defendant has moved to dismiss for forum non
conveniens . 1 For the following reasons , the motion to dismiss
will be allowed .
1 Defen dan t also filed motion s to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for
inapplicable extraterritorial conduct under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act ( " TVPA " ). The Court declines to reach the merits of those
motions .
1
Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 13I. Facts The Court accepts as true all well - pled factual allegations in the complaint . Pavlovich is a citizen of New Zea la nd and resided therein during the relevant time period . Palmer is a U. S . citizen who was lawfully domiciled in New Zealand during the relevant time period . In 2020 , the two met and became acquainted in Auckl and, New Zealand . At the time Pavlovich was twenty - two years old , financially insecure and had spent time unhoused. She also had a history of menta l health crises. In February , 2022 , Palmer offered to pay Pavlovich to babysit the child she shared with Gaiman , to whom she was married but from whom she was separated at the time . The job required Pavlovich to spend time at the separate homes of both Palmer and Gaiman on Waiheke Island , which is accessible only by a 40 - minute ferry ride from Auckland . Pavlovich did not know nor have reason to know that Gaiman had previously been accused of sexually assaulting and/or raping numerous women . On February 4 , 2022 , while Pavlovich was babysitting at Gaiman ' s residence , he sexually assaulted her . During the incident Gaiman stated Palmer had told him that he could not " have [Pavlovich) ," which made him feel " he had to have [her] ." After the attack , Pavlovich returned to Pa lmer ' s residence and 2 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 13
babysat as planned for the remainder of the weekend . not mention the incident to Palmer . She did Soon thereafter , Palmer offered Pavlovich a job as a live - in nanny . The job again required Pavlovich to spend time at both residences . Pavlovich accepted the offer after encouragement and promises of payment and career assistance by Palmer and Gaiman . Gaiman repeatedly raped and/or sexually assaulted Pavlovich during the time she worked as the live - in nanny at both residences . Neither Palmer nor Gaiman paid Pavlovich for her services . As a result , Pavlovich could not afford food , transport off Waiheke Island or alternative housing . Weeks later , Pavlovich informed Palmer about Gaiman ' s abuses . Palmer allegedly was not surpr i sed and told Pavlovich that she was aware of more than a dozen other women who had been subjected to similar sexual abuse by Gaiman . Palmer never told Pavlovich about - Gaiman ' s other victims prior to that conversation but offered to " take care " of Pavlovich , as she had done for other victims , by providing her with temporary accommodations in Auckland . Pavlovich became suicidal while living in the temporary accommodations and was subsequently hospitalized for psychiatric 3 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 13
treatment . Upon her release from the hospital , Pavlovich was told she could no longer stay in the temporary accommodations but received a small amount of " rent money " from Gaiman after she signed an employment agreement backdated to February 4 , 2022 , the date of the first alleged rape. Pavlovich filed a police report accusing Gaiman of sexual assault but the police took no action and she later moved to Scotland , where she currently resides and is enrolled at a university . Palmer currently lives in Massachusetts while Gaiman lives in Wisconsin . II. Procedural History In early February , 2025 , plaintiff filed a complaint and demand for jury trial in this Court . She asserts five claims against Palmer : 1) human trafficking in violation of 18 U. S . C . §§1591 , 1595(a) (count I) ; 2) human trafficking in violation of 18 U. S . C . §1589 and civil conspiracy (count II) ; 3) human trafficking in violation of 18 U. S . C. §§1590(a) , 1595(a) and civil conspiracy (co unt III) ; 4) conspiracy to commit trafficking in violation of 18 U. S . C. §§1594 , 15 95(a) (count IV) , and 5) negligence against Palmer for introducing plaintiff to Gaiman and failing to warn her of the unreasonable danger he posed . 4 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 13
Defendant now moves to dismiss all claims for forum non conveniens pursuant to Fed . R. Civ . P . 12(b) (3) . III. Legal Standard Forum non conveniens is a discretionary defense that empowers a district court to dismiss an action when a court abroad is the more appropriate and convenient forum . Sysco Mach. Corp . v . Cymtek Sols . , Inc ., 124 F . 4th 32 , 37 (1st Cir. 2024). Although plaintiff ' s chosen forum is entitled to deference , that presumption applies with less force when the plaintiff ' s choice is not her home forum . Id . The moving party ' s burden is twofold ; it must e s tabli s h that (1) an adequate alternative forum is available and (2) considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favor litigating the claim in that alternative forum . Adelson v . Hananel , 510 F . 3d 43 , 52 (1st Cir . 2007) . A. Adequate Forum An adequate forum must meet two requirements : (1) all parties are subject to that forum ' s jurisdiction , and (2) the parties will not be depr i ved of all remedies or treated unfairly , even though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an American court . Imamura v . Gen. Elec . Co. , 957 F.3d 98 , 106 (1st Cir . 2020) 5 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 13
The first requirement (the forum ' s " availability " ) is typically satisfied if the defendant is amenable to service of process there . Id . As to the second requirement (the forum ' s· " adequacy " ) , an alternat i ve forum is adequate unless the remedy it provides " is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all . " Id . B . Convenience and Judicial Efficiency The second and more complicated inquiry involves balancing "the compendium of factors relevant to the private and public interests implicated by the case " to determine whether defendant has demonstrated that dismissal is appropriate . Relevant private interest factors include the relative ease of access to sources of proof ; availability [and cost] of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling , and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing , witnesses . . and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy , expeditious [ , ] and inexpensive . Id . at 107 . The relevant public interest factors include the administrative difficulties f l owing from court congestion ; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home ; the interest in h aving the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at ho me with the law that must govern the action ; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws , or in the application of foreign law ; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty . Id . (internal quotations omitted) . 6 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 13
IV. Analysis
A. Availability and Adequacy
It is undisputed that Palmer stipulated to service of
process in New Zealand . The Court need not undertake additional
analysis on availability .
Plaintiff contests the adequacy of New Zealand as an
alternative forum . She argues that , because New Zealand has
adopted a no - fault compensation scheme for victims of accidents
and intentional torts outside of the court system (" the Accident
Compensation Corporation n or " ACC n ) , New Zealand cannot be
considered an adequate alternative forum .
The fact that plaintiff ' s claim in New Zealand would be
handled outside of the judicial system does not necessarily mean
New Zealand is an inadequate forum . Indeed , courts have
consistently found New Zealand (and many other countries with
similar adjudicative remedies) to be adequate alternative forums
notwithstanding the lack of formal court proceedings . See , e . g .,
Lueck v . Sundstrand Corp ., 236 F . 3d 1137 , 1144 (9th Cir . 2011) ;
Imamura , 957 F . 3d at 112 . The relevant inquiry is not whether
litigation is available but whether the remedy offered " is so
clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at
7
Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 7 of 13a ll . " Imamura , 957 F . 3d at 1 0 6 . Tha t is plainly not the case here . Although the ACC does not provide compensation to victims f o r purely emotional injuries , victims are afforded access to free mental health services to treat any emotional injury . Gi v en that a compensatory damage award would presumably be used to pay for that kind of treatment , the Court finds such a remedy t o be suff i cient . Plaintiff responds that she does not live in New Zealand and thus cannot access available services . Yet the record before this Court indicates that she was receiving government - sponsored therapy unti l she voluntarily left New Zealand in 20 2 4. Thus , plaintiff has already received a remedy for her mental injuries . The therapy provided by the ACC without cost is not the only remedy available to Pavlovich in New Zealand ; she could also pursue exemplary damages for egregious conduct . Plaintiff responds that " such damages do not provide compensation for the injur i es Scarlet suffered ." Whether such exemplary damages are awarde d specifica l ly for her pain and suffering is irrelevant ; th ei r availabi l ity demonstrates that remedies beyond the ACC are a v a il abl e to her . 8 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 8 of 13
Although such remedies may be less comprehensive than those available in the United States , plaintiff is not without relief in New Zealand . That is all that is required under the doctrine of forum non conveniens for New Zealand to be deemed an adequate forum . B. Convenience and Judicial Economy The Court proceeds to consideration of the private a n d public interests implicated by the case and its possible transfer . i. Private Interests The primary inquiry under the private i nterest analysis is the co nvenience of the parties and access to witnesses and evidence . Pavlovich contend s that the case has only three key witnesses : Palmer , Gaiman and herself , none of whom currently resides in New Zealand . That argument ignores the fundamental fact that Gaim an and Pal mer have both agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of New Zealand . The Court wil l not ignore t h at reality and exercise jur i sdictio n over parties in a civil case who would clearly be inconvenienced thereby and would prefer to proceed in New Zealand . As for plaintiff ' s convenience , although the flight from the United Kingdom to New Zealand is prodigious , the flight to 9 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 9 of 13
Massachusetts is hardly convenient . In either case , Pavlovich will need to fly thousands of miles overseas , and the closer proximity of Massachusetts does not outweigh the other factors in favor of dismissal. Pavlovich takes issue with Palmer ' s claim that all relevant witnesses and evidence are in New Zealand , noting that Palmer has not identified any specific testimony that would be proffered in New Zealand . The same can , however , be said of Pavlovich who has not identified any potential witness in Massachusetts other than Palmer . Furthermore , Palmer has made it clear that she is amenable to jurisdiction in New Zealand . Finally , Pavlovich claims that dismissal of her case would make it more difficult to coordinate this case with the one against Gaiman , which has been filed in the Western District of Wisconsin . That argument is now moot because the case against Gaiman was dismissed for forum non conveniens in October , 2025 . In sum , the private interests tilt in favor of dismissal . ii. Public Interests The public interest analysis , as briefed by the parties , depends upon which forum has a stronger interest in adjudicating the dispute . Notwithstanding the fact that all relevant conduct occurred in New Zealand , Pavlovich asserts that the United 10 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 10 of 13
States has a strong interest in hearing the case . Th e only support she offers for her contention is that , under the TVPA , American courts have extraterritorial jurisdiction over any offense identified in certain criminal laws prohibiting trafficking , and victims of those criminal laws may bring civil Pavlovich actions against the perpetrators to recover damages . suggests that because the criminal actions 1) have extraterritorial application and 2) allow victims to pursue civil claims , a civil action brought by a victim has extraterritorial application as well . The problem with that reasoning is that the TVPA civil remedy does not apply extraterritorially , and Supreme Court precedent indicates that , in the absence of any statutory language authorizing extraterritorial application , such a civil remedy is limited to domestic application . RJR Nabisco v . Eur . Cmty. , 579 U. S . 325 (2016) (holding that RICO ' s civil remedies provision lacks extraterritorial application , notwithstanding the extraterritorial reach of the underlying criminal provisions) . The First Circuit has not considered whether the civil remedy provision applies extra - territorially and other appeals courts have differed in their holdings . 11 Given such uncertainty , Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 11 of 13
this Court is disinclined to find that Pavlovich ' s civil c l aim has extraterritorial application . Even assuming , arguendo , that the TVPA civil remedy provision applies outside the United States , there is no case l aw support for the proposition that it is relevant to a forum non conveniens inquiry . Having disposed of the TVPA issue , it is clear to the Court that New Zealand has a g r eater interest in deciding this case . Plaintiff is a citizen of New Zealand , all the underlying conduct took place in New Zealand and defendant was a lawful resident of New Zealand during the relevant time period . Common sense dictates that New Zealand is the more interested forum . As United States District Judge James D. Peterson (W . D. Wi s . ) observed when dismissing Pavlovich ' s case against Gaiman , [Massachusetts] jurors would be scratching their heads about how and why they were being asked to decide a dispute regarding such far away events that have nothing to do with them . 12 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 12 of 13
ORDER For the foregoing reasons , the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is ALLOWED. So ordered . Nathaniel M. Gorton Senior United States District Judge Dated : February b , 2026 13 Case 1:25-cv-10263-NMG Document 32 Filed 02/06/26 Page 13 of 13
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.