The federal sexual assault and human-trafficking lawsuit filed against author Neil Gaiman has been dismissed by a Wisconsin judge, who ruled that the case should be litigated in New Zealand, not the United States. The decision, issued October 3 by U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson, ends the case in Wisconsin but leaves open the possibility for the plaintiff, Scarlett Pavlovich, to refile abroad.
Case Dismissed on Jurisdiction, Not Facts
The court’s decision did not address the truth of Pavlovich’s allegations — that Gaiman assaulted her in 2022 while she worked as a nanny for him and then-wife Amanda Palmer in New Zealand. Instead, Peterson found that “all relevant events occurred in New Zealand” and that Wisconsin’s only connection was that Gaiman maintains a residence there.
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court held that New Zealand is the “more appropriate forum” because both parties lived there during the alleged incidents, witnesses and evidence are located there, and the events have no substantial connection to the United States. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing Pavlovich to refile her claims in New Zealand.
“Wisconsin Jurors Would Be Scratching Their Heads”
Judge Peterson emphasized that the United States has “virtually no connection” to the subject matter of the case, writing that Wisconsin jurors would be “scratching their heads” as to why they were being asked to decide “a dispute regarding such far-away events that have nothing to do with them.”
He cited precedent that jury duty “ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation,” and said both the private and public interest factors weighed “strongly in favor of dismissal.”
Human-Trafficking Claim Fails to Anchor Jurisdiction
Pavlovich’s lawsuit invoked the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), a federal law that allows victims of trafficking to seek civil damages. She argued that the TVPA’s extraterritorial reach made the U.S. an appropriate forum.
But the court disagreed, finding that the civil remedies provision of the TVPA (18 U.S.C. § 1595) lacks explicit extraterritorial language — even though the criminal provisions do. Peterson drew on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in RJR Nabisco v. European Community (2016), which limited civil enforcement of U.S. laws to domestic conduct unless Congress clearly stated otherwise.
The judge sided with a recent decision in Mia v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2025), which rejected the broader interpretation adopted in Roe v. Howard (4th Cir. 2019). “The text of the statute itself must provide a clear indication of an extraterritorial application,” Peterson wrote. “Pavlovich does not identify such a clear indication.”
New Zealand Deemed “Adequate and Available”
Although New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Act restricts civil personal-injury lawsuits in favor of an administrative compensation system, the court concluded that the country remains an “adequate” forum. Gaiman and Palmer have agreed to accept service in New Zealand, and the system allows for limited exemplary damages in cases of extreme misconduct.
Even if the available remedies are less generous than those under U.S. law, Peterson noted, that does not render the forum inadequate under established precedent.
Case Closed — For Now
The Wisconsin case is officially closed, but Pavlovich retains the right to refile in New Zealand. The judge noted that if Gaiman or Palmer refuse service abroad, the plaintiff could move to reopen the U.S. action.
The ruling does not clear Gaiman of the underlying allegations, only that Wisconsin is not the proper venue to hear them. Pavlovich, a New Zealand citizen, is one of several women who accused Gaiman of misconduct in 2024.
Neither Gaiman nor Palmer has publicly commented on the dismissal.