Nelson v. SIS Software, LLC
- Donovan Frank
- 0:24-cv-04180
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Nelson v. SIS Software, LLC, Judge Frank denied former employee Jim Nelson's motion for a default judgment against his employer and ordered the case transferred from Minnesota to the Northern District of Georgia based on a valid forum-selection clause in Nelson's employment agreement.
Employees who sign employment agreements containing forum-selection clauses requiring litigation in another state, particularly those working in Minnesota who may seek to invoke Minnesota's 2023 noncompete ban to void such clauses; employers who include forum-selection clauses in employment agreements; litigants considering motions for default judgment when the opposing party has delayed but eventually appeared.
What happened
In Nelson v. SIS Software, LLC, Jim Nelson, a Minnesota resident, sued his former employer SIS Software, LLC, alleging he was fired in retaliation for reporting that SIS was pushing him to sell software it knew would not meet a client's needs. Nelson brought seven claims including wrongful termination under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, fraud, and breach of contract. He also asked the court to declare his employment agreement unenforceable or to strike certain provisions from it, including a clause requiring any disputes to be litigated in federal or state court in Fulton County, Georgia.
When SIS failed to respond to the lawsuit for several months, Nelson applied for a default judgment — a ruling in his favor based on the other side's failure to participate. SIS eventually appeared and filed its own motion to dismiss the case or transfer it to Georgia based on the forum-selection clause. The court considered both motions together.
Judge Frank denied Nelson's motion for default judgment, finding that the delay was not willful or intentional, was only about five months, did not prejudice Nelson, and that SIS was now actively defending the case. Judge Frank then granted SIS's alternative request to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia, finding the forum-selection clause valid and enforceable. The court rejected Nelson's arguments that the clause was the product of fraud or overreaching, that it would deprive him of his day in court, or that it violated Minnesota public policy — specifically finding that a 2023 Minnesota law banning noncompete agreements did not apply here because Nelson's contract only restricted competition during employment, not after, and the relevant statute only covers post-employment restrictions.
The detailed version
- Nelson v. SIS Software, LLC, Civil No. 24-4180 (DWF/DJF), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge
- September 25, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Jim Nelson, a Minnesota resident with experience in Enterprise Resource Planning and Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) software, was recruited by SIS Software, LLC in March 2023 for a Senior EAM Industry Consultant role. He signed an Employment Agreement on April 6, 2023 that included: (1) a choice-of-law clause designating Georgia law; (2) a forum-selection clause requiring disputes to be litigated in the federal court in Fulton County, Georgia, or if unavailable, the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia; (3) a noncompete clause barring competitive activities during employment; and (4) non-disclosure and non-solicitation clauses barring such activities for two years after termination. Nelson alleges he was pressured to sign quickly. He claims that during employment he was assigned duties outside his job description, pressured to sell software unsuitable for a client, and terminated on February 8, 2024, in retaliation for whistleblowing.
Procedural History
Nelson filed suit November 12, 2024, and amended his complaint November 27, 2024, asserting seven claims: (1) wrongful termination under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act; (2) fraudulent inducement; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) violation of the Minnesota Personnel Record Review and Access Act; and (7) declaratory judgment seeking to have the Employment Agreement declared unenforceable or to strike the noncompete and forum-selection clauses. After SIS failed to respond for approximately five months following service, the Clerk entered a default on May 6, 2025. Nelson then moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). SIS appeared June 30, 2025, and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) or, in the alternative, to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Motion for Default Judgment — Denied
The court noted that default judgment is disfavored and should be a rare act, with courts preferring adjudication on the merits. Applying the multi-factor analysis — prejudice to the moving party, whether grounds for default are clearly established, and whether the non-moving party has responded — the court found default judgment inappropriate for four reasons: (1) service was disputed because of confusion among multiple related LLCs with "SIS" in their names, making the delay appear non-willful; (2) the delay of approximately five months was not significant enough to constitute contumacious (deliberately defiant) conduct; (3) Nelson showed no prejudice from the delay; and (4) SIS had appeared and was actively defending.
Motion to Transfer — Granted
The court applied a three-part framework for evaluating a § 1404(a) transfer motion based on a forum-selection clause: (1) whether the District of Minnesota is a proper venue; (2) whether the forum-selection clause is valid; and (3) whether it is enforceable. The burden was on Nelson to show the clause is invalid or unenforceable.
Venue: The District of Minnesota is a proper venue because Nelson worked exclusively from Minnesota, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred there.
Validity — Employment Agreement: The court applied Minnesota law (as both parties relied on it) and rejected Nelson's three theories for invalidating the underlying Employment Agreement. On unconscionability — defined as a contract no clear-thinking person would make or accept — the court found that boilerplate language, unequal bargaining power, and choice-of-law provisions are common in employment contracts, and Nelson showed neither that SIS had a duty to explain each provision nor that he was denied opportunity to negotiate or consult a lawyer. On contract of adhesion — requiring both a great disparity in bargaining power with no opportunity to negotiate, and that the services are a public necessity unavailable elsewhere — the court found Nelson failed to show that employment with SIS was a public necessity or that he could not obtain work elsewhere. On duress — requiring physical force or unlawful threats destroying free will — Nelson alleged neither physical force nor any unlawful threat.
Validity — Forum-Selection Clause Specifically: Nelson argued the clause resulted from fraud or overreaching. The court rejected this, finding that mere disparity in bargaining power or urgency in signing does not constitute fraud, and that Nelson did not allege he was denied opportunity to negotiate or take more time. The court also found the existence of multiple interrelated SIS LLCs did not amount to fraud.
Deprivation of Day in Court: Nelson argued that litigating in Georgia would be inconvenient and unaffordable. The court held that inconvenience alone is insufficient; a party must show that proceeding in the contractual forum will be "gravely difficult," and that inability to afford litigation in the selected forum does not meet that standard under Eighth Circuit precedent.
Public Policy: Nelson argued that a 2023 Minnesota statute banning noncompete clauses (Minn. Stat. § 181.988) reflects a strong public policy requiring Minnesota residents' employment disputes to be adjudicated in Minnesota. The statute voids noncompete clauses in employment agreements entered on or after July 1, 2023, and allows employees who primarily reside and work in Minnesota to void related forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses. The court acknowledged this statute reflects a strong public policy — even though Nelson's agreement predated the statute's effective date — but found the statute inapplicable because: (a) the noncompete clause in Nelson's agreement restricted competition only during employment, not after termination; and (b) the statute only covers post-termination noncompete restrictions. The non-disclosure and non-solicitation clauses are not covered by the statute.
Enforceability: Under Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 571 U.S. 49 (2013), when a valid forum-selection clause exists, courts: (1) disregard the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) do not weigh the parties' private interests; and (3) do not transfer the original venue's choice-of-law rules. Because Nelson raised only private-interest arguments, which cannot be considered under this framework, he failed to carry the heavy burden of overcoming the forum-selection clause. The court found it enforceable.
Orders
(1) Nelson's amended motion for default judgment is DENIED. (2) SIS's motion to dismiss or transfer is GRANTED IN PART — the motion to dismiss was not addressed; the alternative motion to transfer was granted. (3) The case is transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.