The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a sexual assault lawsuit against author Neil Gaiman, affirming that the case should be heard in New Zealand instead of the United States. The decision impacts Scarlett Pavlovich, the plaintiff, who accused Gaiman of multiple assaults while working for him in New Zealand.
The ruling, issued on June 29, 2026, follows Pavlovich's allegations that Gaiman sexually assaulted her repeatedly while she was employed as a nanny for his family. The court's decision is significant because it highlights the complexities of jurisdiction in cases involving international elements, particularly when the alleged misconduct occurs outside U.S. borders.
Background
Scarlett Pavlovich is a citizen of New Zealand who currently resides in Scotland. Neil Gaiman, a well-known author, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and a permanent resident of Wisconsin. The legal dispute arose when Pavlovich, who had been living and working in New Zealand, accused Gaiman of sexual assault during her employment.
Pavlovich began working for Gaiman’s family in 2020, initially running errands before being hired as a live-in nanny in early 2022. She alleges that Gaiman assaulted her shortly after she began her employment and that the abuse continued for weeks. After the incidents, Pavlovich sought psychiatric help and filed a criminal complaint in New Zealand, which she claims went unaddressed.
In 2025, Pavlovich filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, bringing nine claims against Gaiman and his wife, including violations of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Gaiman responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that New Zealand was a more appropriate forum for the dispute.
The Ruling
The Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Kolar, ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. This legal principle allows a court to dismiss a case if another forum is deemed more convenient for the parties involved.
The court ruled, “We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision. Thus, we affirm its judgment dismissing this action without prejudice.”
The judges considered whether New Zealand was an adequate forum for Pavlovich’s claims and whether it had a stronger connection to the case than the United States. They concluded that New Zealand was indeed an appropriate venue, given that Gaiman had consented to being sued there.
While Pavlovich argued that New Zealand's legal system would not provide her adequate remedies, the court found that she would still have access to punitive damages, which could be pursued in New Zealand. The judges noted that the potential requirement for Pavlovich to post security for Gaiman’s legal costs did not render New Zealand an inadequate forum.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Pavlovich and others in similar situations. It underscores the challenges faced by plaintiffs when seeking justice for alleged crimes that occur in foreign countries. The decision also emphasizes the importance of the forum non conveniens doctrine, which allows courts to prioritize the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice.
The court's ruling may influence future cases involving international elements, particularly those related to sexual assault and human trafficking. By affirming the lower court's decision, the Seventh Circuit reinforces the notion that U.S. courts may defer to foreign jurisdictions when they have a stronger connection to the dispute.
What's Next
Pavlovich's case is dismissed without prejudice, meaning she could potentially refile her claims in New Zealand. Additionally, she has a related case pending against Gaiman’s wife in Massachusetts, which was also dismissed under forum non conveniens. The outcome of that appeal may further clarify the legal landscape surrounding these types of cases.