McNeil

MEMORANDUM *

Philip McNeil (“McNeil”) appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against The Stanley Works (“Stanley”) on the basis of abstention and, alternatively, forum non conveniens. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332, and 1367, and we have jurisdiction over McNeil’s timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing McNeil’s action on the ground of forum non conveniens. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount it here.

A forum non conveniens determination “is committed to [the] sound discretion of the trial court,” and “may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte Ltd., 61 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1995)). The district court abuses its discretion when it relies upon an erroneous view of the law, relies upon a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or strikes an unreasonable balanee of the relevant factors. Id. We find no such abuse here.

McNeil argues that the district court erred in…