Fisher v. DigitalOcean, LLC
- Sallie Kim
- 3:25-cv-02515
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Fisher v. DigitalOcean, Judge Kim denied default judgment and granted Fisher’s request to undo the default against her.
Danielle Fisher and DigitalOcean, LLC; the order prevents default judgment at this stage and allows Fisher to defend against DigitalOcean’s counterclaims.
What happened
In Fisher v. DigitalOcean, LLC, DigitalOcean asked for default judgment on its counterclaims against Danielle Fisher. Fisher asked the court to set aside the entry of default against her.
Fisher argued that she had possible defenses to DigitalOcean’s claims, including that the lock-up agreement was invalid, signed under pressure, unsupported by consideration, and did not justify the requested remedy. She also argued that DigitalOcean had not been harmed.
Judge Kim denied DigitalOcean’s motion for default judgment and granted Fisher’s motion to set aside the entry of default. The court said Fisher had met the minimal requirement of identifying potentially valid defenses, without deciding whether those defenses would ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Fisher v. DigitalOcean, LLC · No. 3:25-cv-02515
- Sallie Kim
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
DigitalOcean, LLC filed counterclaims against Danielle Fisher for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties. The claims concerned an allegation that Fisher sold too many shares in violation of a lock-up agreement. DigitalOcean moved for default judgment on those counterclaims. Fisher moved to set aside the entry of default against her.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. The court considered whether the default resulted from culpable conduct, whether Fisher had a potentially meritorious defense, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice DigitalOcean. The court explained that the burden for showing a potentially meritorious defense is not especially heavy: the party generally must allege facts that, if true, would establish a defense. The court does not decide the truth of those allegations at this stage.
Arguments and analysis
Fisher identified several possible defenses. She argued that DigitalOcean suffered no harm, that she signed the lock-up agreement under duress, that disgorgement was not an appropriate remedy, that the agreement was not a valid contract, and that she received no consideration for signing it. DigitalOcean argued that none of these defenses was meritorious.
The court found that Fisher had sufficiently asserted potentially meritorious defenses to meet the minimal requirement for setting aside the entry of default. The court expressly did not decide whether Fisher would ultimately prevail on any defense; those issues would be addressed in later litigation.
Disposition
The court denied DigitalOcean’s motion for default judgment on its counterclaims and granted Fisher’s motion to set aside the entry of default against her.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.