Pavlovich v. Palmer

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 13

I. 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 13

a 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