Three federal lawsuits against acclaimed British fantasy author Neil Gaiman have been formally dismissed by US courts, marking a significant legal development in a high-profile case that spanned multiple jurisdictions. The legal actions, initiated by former nanny Scarlett Pavlovich, alleged multiple instances of sexual assault during her employment with Gaiman and his wife, musician Amanda Palmer, in New Zealand in 2022.
The judicial dismissals occurred progressively across three federal districts. In New York, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Pavlovich’s voluntary withdrawal of her case against Palmer in June. Wisconsin’s Judge James Peterson dismissed the remaining portions of that state’s lawsuit in October, while Massachusetts Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued the final dismissal on identical grounds this past Friday. All three jurists concurred that New Zealand represented the appropriate legal venue for such proceedings, given that the alleged incidents occurred within its jurisdiction.
Pavlovich’s allegations, detailed in court documents, described a pattern of abuse beginning in February 2022 when she was 22 and homeless. She claimed Gaiman assaulted her on their first meeting, with subsequent incidents occurring throughout her employment. The lawsuits further alleged that Palmer had prior knowledge of her husband’s behavior, with court filings stating Palmer acknowledged previous similar allegations from over a dozen women.
The legal defense mounted by Gaiman’s representatives characterized the relationship as consensual and brief, noting that New Zealand authorities had previously investigated and dismissed the assault claims. They argued the lawsuits constituted a coordinated effort to damage Gaiman’s reputation and should properly be adjudicated in New Zealand.
Neither Pavlovich’s legal team nor representatives for Gaiman and Palmer responded to requests for comment following the dismissals. The cases sought $7 million in damages under federal human trafficking statutes, though all claims have now been judicially rejected on jurisdictional grounds.