Katherine Archut v. Ross University School of Vete, et al
Filing
NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: MCKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. Judge: MCKEE Authoring.
Case: 13-4377
Document: 003111781140
Page: 1
Date Filed: 10/31/2014
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 13-4377
____________
KATHERINE ARCHUT,
Appellant
v.
ROSS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE; DEVRY, INC.,
a corporation of the state of Delaware, ABC CORPORATION 1-5, being
fictitiously named subsidiaries of DeVry, Inc.
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-10-cv-01681)
District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper
________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 11, 2014
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: October 31, 2014)
__________
OPINION 1
__________
McKEE, Chief Judge.
1
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding
precedent.
Case: 13-4377
Document: 003111781140
Page: 2
Date Filed: 10/31/2014
Katherine Archut appeals the dismissal of her federal and state claims she
brought alleging violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and
breach of contract. The district court held that federal and state antidiscrimination laws did not apply extraterritorially and dismissed the remaining
breach of contract claim under the theory of forum non conveniens. We will
affirm.
In a thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Cooper
explained why she was granting summary judgment on Archut’s federal and state
anti-discrimination claims. See Archut v. Ross Univ. Sch. of Veterinary Med., No.
10–1681(MLC), 2012 WL 5867148 (D.N.J. Nov. 19, 2012). The court explained
its conclusion that the statutes those claims are based upon do not apply
extraterritorially, and we can add little to that court’s analysis and discussion. See
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 2878,
177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010) (determining that absent, a “clear indication of an
exterritorial application, [the statute] has none.”). Accordingly, we will affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth in the aforementioned Memorandum Opinion
of the district court.
Judge Cooper also carefully and completely explained her reasons for
granting Ross’s motion to dismiss the remaining breach of contract claim on the
grounds of forum non conveniens. See Archut v. Ross Univ. Sch. of Veterinary
Med., No. 10–1681(MLC), 2013 WL 5913675 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2013). In her
2
Case: 13-4377
Document: 003111781140
Page: 3
Date Filed: 10/31/2014
thorough opinion, Judge Cooper explained that she was dismissing the contract
claim because it arises from conduct that occurred in St. Kitts. As the judge
explained, St. Kitts is therefore the appropriate forum to litigate the alleged
contract breach. Since “the law of St. Kitts likely governs the dispute, trial of the
case in a St. Kitts forum will be much easier and expeditious.” Id. at *15.
Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth
in the district court’s Memorandum and Order without further elaboration.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?