HSE PACIFIC PTY LTD, et al. v. HSE AMERICAS INC., et al.
- Pr
- 5:26-cv-05272
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In HSE Pacific v. HSE Americas, Judge Pr granted HSE Americas’ motion to set aside its default and ordered a response within seven days.
HSE Americas Inc. may respond to HSE Pacific Pty Ltd.’s complaint because the court set aside the entry of default. The underlying claims and defenses remain unresolved.
What happened
In HSE PACIFIC PTY LTD v. HSE AMERICAS INC., HSE Pacific sued HSE Americas and others over money it allegedly sent after false statements about payroll compliance, possible tax-agency action, and corporate standing. HSE Americas failed to respond by the deadline after receiving delayed notice and the clerk entered its default.
HSE Americas asked the court to set aside the default so it could answer the complaint. It said it did not intentionally ignore the lawsuit, contacted lawyers promptly after receiving actual notice, and had possible defenses. HSE Pacific opposed the request.
Judge Pr ruled that all three relevant factors favored HSE Americas: no intentional failure to respond, potentially valid defenses, and no meaningful prejudice to HSE Pacific from the short delay. The court granted the motion to set aside the entry of default and ordered HSE Americas to respond within seven days.
The detailed version
- HSE PACIFIC PTY LTD, et al. v. HSE AMERICAS INC., et al. · No. 5:26-cv-05272
- Pr
- Sept. 21, 2026
Background
HSE Pacific sued HSE Americas and others on June 3, 2026. According to the complaint, HSE Pacific is an Australian technology safety company in the mining industry. It alleged that it recruited Nicolas and Sonia Domeyko to help establish HSE Americas and that the defendants persuaded HSE Pacific to send $400,000 AUD based on false statements about an imminent payroll-compliance crisis, possible Internal Revenue Service action, and the risk of losing Delaware corporate standing. The complaint asserted federal and state inducement claims, money had and received, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.
HSE Pacific served the complaint on HSE Americas’ registered service agent on June 10,
- HSE Americas stated that it did not receive actual notice until July 6 because the service agent sent the papers several days later and sent an email to an old, rarely checked personal email address. HSE Americas contacted HSE Pacific’s counsel on July 7 and
- In the meantime, HSE Americas had moved for entry of default on July 2, and the clerk entered default on July
- HSE Americas then asked HSE Pacific to agree to set aside the default, but HSE Pacific declined.
Motion and legal standard
HSE Americas moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) to set aside the entry of default and to file an answer. The rule allows a court to set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” The court considered whether HSE Americas engaged in culpable conduct that caused the default, whether it had a potentially valid defense, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice HSE Pacific.
Court’s analysis
The court found no culpable conduct. It explained that culpable conduct requires actual or constructive notice of the lawsuit followed by an intentional failure to answer. The evidence showed that HSE Americas sought to respond promptly after receiving actual notice. Although HSE Americas should have kept its contact information current with the service agent, the record did not show that it intentionally failed to answer.
The court also found that HSE Americas identified potentially meritorious defenses. Those defenses included arguments that key trademarks were generic, other marks were not distinctive or source-identifying, HSE Pacific did not own a key trade secret, a key contract did not exist, and other factual assertions undermined additional causes of action.
Finally, the court found that HSE Pacific would not realistically be prejudiced. The case had been filed in June, and HSE Americas sought to participate fully by the first week of July. The court found no prejudice from the delay of several days. It also found HSE Pacific’s references to depleted funds too vague to establish prejudice.
The court additionally criticized what it described as HSE Pacific’s rush to seek default and refusal to agree to set it aside. The court stated that it would have granted the motion even if some of the three factors had favored HSE Pacific.
Disposition
Judge Pr granted HSE Americas’ motion to set aside the entry of default. The court ordered HSE Americas to file its response to the complaint within seven days of the order. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.