
    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.
    
      Stuart A. Smith, New York, NY, for Appellants.
    Bertrand C. Sellier (Law Office of Daniel J. Rothstein, P.C., the brief), Rotten-berg 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 Si-rotkin.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, NELSON S. ROMÁN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Nelson S. Román, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   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 conve-niens 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 plaintiffs 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.  