Rigroup LLC, Bullock v. Trefonisco Mgmt. Ltd.

559 F. App'x 58

2d Cir.

2014

Check Treatment

Docket

RIGROUP LLC, Janna Bullock, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. TREFONISCO MANAGEMENT LIMITED, Conflict.Net.Ru, aka Limited Liability Company Konfklikt.Net.Ru, Alexander Esin, A.V. Belov, John Does, 1-9, Gorsoan Limited, Vitaly Sirotkin, John Does, 1-7, Defendant-Appellees.

No. 13-2572.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 18, 2014.

gan “coughing and bringing up all kinds of black stuff” during the weeks he was working at the WTC site. As an immediate reaction to the air at the WTC site, this might be inadequate to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Here, however, Greenberg stated that his respiratory symptoms persisted long after he ceased his work at the WTC site in October of 2001. Greenberg‘s own medical expert, Dr. Gwen S. Skloot, admitted that, “[b]y his own report, [Greenberg‘s] respiratory symptoms began 10 days after his initial exposure at the WTC disaster site,” and that “[h]e continues to have frequent wheezing, chest tightness, chronic cough and shortness of breath.” Indeed, Greenberg testified that he visited his doctor shortly after leaving the WTC site, in part because of complaints that he was “coughing” and “choking.” The doctor diagnosed Greenberg with a nasal infection and prescribed nasal sprays, but Greenberg testified that, although the sprays ameliorated the cough somewhat, he “always had a cough persisting.” This conclusion is reinforced by Greenberg‘s admission in the amended complaint that he learned of his wheezing and Obstructive Airway Disease injuries 23 in October 2001.

Since Greenberg began suffering from his respiratory ailments shortly after September 11, 2001, and these symptoms, by his own account, persisted long after he left the WTC site and failed to respond to medication that his doctor prescribed, we conclude that Greenberg had notice of his respiratory ailments before March of 2002. Furthermore, because Greenberg‘s expert testified that Greenberg had sarcoidosis of the lungs, which typically manifests itself in respiratory symptoms such as coughing and difficulty breathing, Greenberg also had notice of his sarcoidosis before March of 2002. Accordingly, Greenberg‘s claims based on respiratory ailments and sarcoidosis are both barred by New York‘s three-year statute of limitations.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Stuart A. Smith, New York, NY, for Appellants.

Bertrand C. Sellier (Law Office of Daniel J. Rothstein, P.C., the brief), Rottenberg 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 Sirotkin.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, NELSON S. ROMÁN, District Judge.^*

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 conveniens 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 plaintiff‘s 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.

Notes

The Honorable Nelson S. Román, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.