Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03127/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MCMILLAN DATA COMMUNICATIONS, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICOM AUTOMATION SERVICES, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03127-JD 

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING ON 

FORUM NON CONVENIENS

This case is an effort by McMillan Data Communications to collect money that it claims 

it’s owed by AmeriCom Automation Services and two individuals for work McMillan performed 

in renovating a federal building in San Francisco, California, pursuant to a subcontract with 

AmeriCom. McMillan filed suit in this Court on July 10, 2014. See Dkt. No. 1. None of the 

defendants appeared, and the clerk entered default against AmeriCom on August 19, 2014, see 

Dkt. No. 17, and against the other defendants on August 28, 2014, see Dkt. No. 23. On October 

14, 2014, McMillan moved for default judgment. See Dkt. No. 27. 

McMillan’s subcontract with AmeriCom contains a forum-selection clause:

This Agreement shall be governed by a construed in accordance 

with the laws of the State of New Mexico. Jurisdiction and venue 

for any dispute should be in 3rd Jurisdiction in the State of New 

Mexico.

Subcontract ¶ 10.2, Dkt. No. 27-3. The Court orders McMillan to explain why default should not 

be lifted and this action dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of New Mexico state 

court. As the Supreme Court has recently held, “a valid forum-selection clause [should be] given 

controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases,” while “the plaintiff’s choice of forum 

merits no weight.” Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 (2013)

Case 3:14-cv-03127-JD Document 32 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(alteration in original). The subcontract between McMillan and AmeriCom contemplates that any 

lawsuits arising under it -- like this one -- be brought in New Mexico’s Third Judicial District 

Court. The Court is therefore inclined to lift the defaults and dismiss the case. A motion by 

defendants is not necessary to do so. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991); 

Seagal v. Vorderwuhlbecke, 162 F. App’x 746, 748 (9th Cir. 2006).

If McMillan objects to the dismissal, it should file a statement of no more than five pages 

explaining why by April 17, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03127-JD Document 32 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 2