Default judgment in a Schedule A case: the current state for sellers

TL;DRA default judgment in a Schedule A case is a federal court order entered against a seller who did not respond to the complaint – and on Amazon US, it can permanently freeze marketplace funds, expose the seller to statutory damages, and end the account before the seller realizes a lawsuit was filed. Being named does not mean an automatic loss. The window to act is narrow, but sellers who engage quickly still have procedural tools available, including motions to vacate default, challenges to jurisdiction, and negotiated resolution before a judgment becomes permanent.

The procedural sequence feels abstract until the funds disappear. A seller opens Seller Central and sees a balance of zero. A restraining order has already been served on Amazon. The complaint was filed weeks earlier in a US federal court, and the seller was listed – alongside dozens or hundreds of others – on a "Schedule A" exhibit. This is the SAD scheme in action: a plaintiff, typically a brand owner or its litigation funder, files a single complaint against a large group of anonymous marketplace sellers, obtains a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an asset freeze ex parte, and relies on a significant share of defendants to do nothing. Those who do nothing receive a default judgment. Those who act have options.

This briefing covers what default judgment in a Schedule A case actually is, the procedural path from TRO to default and beyond, and the decision points a seller faces at each stage.

What does a default judgment in a Schedule A case actually mean?

A default judgment is a civil court judgment entered because a defendant failed to appear or respond within the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In a Schedule A case, "appearing" means filing an answer or a motion in the federal district court where the complaint was filed – most commonly the Northern District of Illinois or the Southern District of Florida, two venues where Schedule A litigation has historically concentrated.

The mechanics work like this. The plaintiff files a complaint alleging trademark or copyright infringement. The court issues a TRO ex parte – meaning without notice to the defendants – and simultaneously orders Amazon and payment processors to freeze the defendants' accounts. Amazon complies. The seller's funds are held. Amazon then provides the plaintiff with sealed contact information, the plaintiff serves the seller (typically by email or through the marketplace), and a deadline to respond runs.

If the seller misses that deadline, the plaintiff applies to the clerk for an entry of default, then moves the court for a default judgment. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the clerk enters default when the defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend – a step that happens before the court formally enters judgment. Once default judgment is entered, the frozen funds can be turned over to the plaintiff, and the judgment can include statutory damages under the Lanham Act or the Copyright Act in amounts that vary by claim type.

The amount is not a ceiling most sellers expect. Because the defendant did not contest the case, the plaintiff often requests – and receives – a damages figure at or near the statutory maximum per infringing act. In matters we handle, the judgment figure bears no relationship to the seller's actual sales of the accused product. It is set by the statute and, in default, by the plaintiff's brief.

How does the SAD scheme lead sellers to default?

The scale and speed of Schedule A litigation is the reason so many sellers default. A single complaint can name dozens to hundreds of marketplace sellers. The case is filed under seal, meaning the public docket does not initially reveal the defendants' identities. The asset freeze lands on the account. But the seller may receive notice only by email to an address that goes to a spam folder – or to a Seller Central messaging address they check infrequently.

What is the realistic window? The TRO typically includes a show-cause date – an expedited hearing, sometimes set within a matter of weeks. Between the TRO and that hearing, defendants can file opposition papers and appear. If they miss the hearing and do not respond to the summons, the path to default accelerates. The seller is not watching a slow-moving case; they are inside a rapid-fire procedure designed to obtain finality quickly.

In the matters we handle involving the SAD scheme, the pattern repeats: the seller did not recognize the Seller Central notification as a lawsuit; they assumed the fund freeze was a routine Amazon account-health action; or they believed the case did not apply to them because they thought their product was legitimate. Each of those assumptions cost time that could have been used to respond.

Understanding the complaint is also harder than it looks. Schedule A cases routinely involve multiple claims – trademark infringement, counterfeiting, trade dress, occasionally copyright – and the specific claim drives the damages exposure and the available defenses. A seller who sells genuine branded goods may have an authorization defense. A seller who sources from a gray-market channel has a different analysis. None of that gets considered in a default.

What is the procedural path from TRO to default judgment?

The procedural sequence in a Schedule A case moves faster than ordinary commercial litigation. Understanding the stages is the prerequisite to acting at the right moment.

Stage 1: TRO and asset freeze. The plaintiff obtains the TRO ex parte. Amazon and payment processors freeze the seller's accounts. The TRO is typically limited in duration – courts may set it for a fixed period, commonly tied to the show-cause hearing date.

Stage 2: Service and the response deadline. The court typically authorizes service by email or through the marketplace platform. The seller has a fixed period – set by the Federal Rules and any court order – to respond. This is the first hard deadline. Missing it is the step that opens the door to entry of default.

Stage 3: Entry of default by the clerk. If the seller does not respond, the plaintiff asks the clerk to enter default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). This is a ministerial step. It does not require a judicial ruling. Once default is entered, the seller is no longer able to contest liability without first vacating the default.

Stage 4: Motion for default judgment. The plaintiff then moves the court under Rule 55(b) for entry of a default judgment. The court reviews the complaint's allegations (which are taken as true) and the plaintiff's damages calculation. The court enters judgment. At that point, the frozen funds can be distributed to the plaintiff.

Stage 5: Post-judgment remedies. After a default judgment, the seller's options narrow sharply. A motion to vacate under Rule 60(b) is still available on grounds such as lack of service, excusable neglect, or fraud on the court – but the standard is higher than at the default-entry stage, and the window is bounded. In addition, some courts have scrutinized the joinder of many unrelated sellers on a single complaint, and challenges on that basis – arguing misjoinder or lack of personal jurisdiction – can be filed even after default in limited circumstances.

For a detailed breakdown of the TRO-stage response strategy, see our motion to dissolve a TRO: the response checklist, which covers the documents to gather and the arguments to assess before the show-cause hearing.

What options does a seller have once default is entered or threatened?

Acting before default is entered is categorically better than acting after. But neither stage is necessarily final.

Before entry of default: The seller can file an answer or a motion to dismiss, appear at the show-cause hearing, and oppose the preliminary injunction. At this stage, the seller can contest every element of the plaintiff's case – jurisdiction, service, the merits of the infringement claim, the scope of the asset freeze. If the product was genuine or the seller had authorization from the brand or an authorized distributor, that evidence is deployed here. Jurisdictional challenges – arguing that the seller has no connection to the district where the case was filed – succeed in a meaningful share of Schedule A matters when pressed promptly.

After entry of default, before default judgment: The seller can move to vacate the entry of default under Rule 55(c). The standard is "good cause" – a more flexible test that considers whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by vacating, and whether the default resulted from culpable conduct by the defendant. Courts have vacated default in Schedule A cases where service was contested or where the seller moved quickly after becoming aware of the suit.

After entry of default judgment: The window narrows to Rule 60(b) relief. The grounds are specific: mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, satisfaction of the judgment, or – critically – a void judgment (one entered without proper jurisdiction or service). Personal jurisdiction challenges survive even after default judgment and can render the judgment unenforceable. This is not a theoretical loophole; courts have vacated Schedule A default judgments on personal jurisdiction grounds in concrete cases.

Settlement: At every stage, the plaintiff's primary interest is typically economic. Plaintiffs in Schedule A cases often have litigation funders behind them and are oriented toward volume settlements. The frozen funds are a negotiating lever; if the frozen balance is the practical ceiling of recovery, the plaintiff has an incentive to resolve rather than pursue an unenforceable judgment against a seller with no US assets beyond the Amazon account. Our practice involves assessing whether the frozen balance, the damages exposure, and the plaintiff's litigation economics support a negotiated resolution – and, if so, on what terms.

For a broader overview of how TRO defense fits into the full arc of Schedule A litigation, the Schedule A TRO defense: the complete guide for sellers covers the case lifecycle in full, including the arguments that tend to move courts at each stage.

What are the seller's key decision points and trade-offs?

The decision tree in a Schedule A matter is not linear. Each stage involves a genuine choice, and the right choice depends on facts that vary by seller.

Is the product genuinely infringing? If the seller's product was counterfeit or substantially identical to the plaintiff's mark, a contested defense may be costly relative to a negotiated exit. If the product was genuine or authorized – including gray-market goods in certain channels – there is a real defense, and contesting the case is the correct path. Getting this wrong in either direction is expensive.

How large is the frozen balance relative to the damages exposure? The frozen balance is the seller's primary economic stake at the TRO stage. If it is small relative to statutory damages, the seller faces asymmetric exposure: fighting the case costs more than the frozen funds, but a default judgment for six or seven figures is also on the table. In those matters, a quick, efficient settlement negotiation – before default judgment is entered – often produces the best commercial outcome. If the frozen balance is large, the calculus shifts.

Does the court have personal jurisdiction? This is the most consequential legal question in many Schedule A matters. Many sellers named in these cases have no connection to the Northern District of Illinois or Southern Florida beyond the fact that Amazon's terms arguably create a national distribution footprint. Courts vary in how they treat this, and the analysis is account- and seller-specific. A seller who prevails on jurisdiction is dismissed. A seller who defaults on a case where jurisdiction was questionable may still be able to vacate the judgment – but that takes more time and cost.

What happens to the Amazon account? The TRO typically includes an injunction against selling the accused product. If the seller contests and prevails on jurisdiction or the merits, the injunction is lifted and the account can continue operating. If the seller settles, the settlement typically includes an agreed order that releases the freeze and resolves the injunction. Default judgment leaves the injunction in place and may provide the grounds for Amazon to deactivate the account entirely.

A software accessories seller on Amazon US (winter 2025) came to us after a TRO had been served and the account balance frozen for several weeks. The seller had been listed on a Schedule A complaint as one of many defendants. We assessed the personal jurisdiction question, filed a motion to dismiss on that basis, and entered parallel settlement discussions. The case resolved on commercial terms before default judgment, the frozen funds were released, and the seller continued operating on the platform.

For the mechanics of challenging the scope of the freeze itself – independent of the liability question – see our analysis of why a motion to modify an asset freeze happens and how sellers respond.

What is still uncertain and what sellers should watch

The Schedule A litigation model has attracted sustained judicial attention, and the procedural rules that govern it continue to evolve. Several questions remain genuinely unsettled.

Joinder scrutiny is increasing. Federal courts have questioned whether plaintiffs can legitimately join hundreds of unrelated sellers in a single complaint simply because each seller allegedly uses Amazon's platform. Some courts have required plaintiffs to sever misjoined defendants. Others have declined to do so. The trend toward stricter joinder scrutiny creates a basis for challenge that did not reliably succeed even a few years ago – but outcomes remain court-dependent and judge-dependent.

Service standards are contested. Schedule A plaintiffs routinely seek leave to serve defendants by email or through the marketplace. Courts have approved this approach. But the adequacy of that service – whether it actually provided the defendant with fair notice – is a fact-specific question that can support a motion to vacate default where service was deficient in practice.

Bond requirements vary. TROs require the plaintiff to post security in an amount the court finds adequate to compensate the defendant if the restraint was wrongful. In practice, bond amounts in Schedule A cases have sometimes been set very low relative to the value of the funds frozen. Courts in some jurisdictions have begun requiring higher bonds. Whether a wrongfully frozen seller can recover on the bond is a live question in matters where the freeze later proves unjustified.

Amazon's compliance posture affects timing. The speed with which Amazon freezes and later releases funds under a TRO or a release order is not fixed by any public schedule. In practice, there can be a gap between a court order directing release and the actual disbursement from Amazon. That gap matters for sellers who need the funds to cover inventory obligations or operating costs while the case is being resolved.

The honest answer to "what is settled law?" in this space is: less than the volume of litigation might suggest. The procedural rules are clear. The substantive outcomes turn on case-specific facts, individual judges, and a body of district-level rulings that is still developing. What we observe in our practice is that sellers who engage quickly – before default is entered – retain the full range of procedural tools. Sellers who come to us after default judgment still have options, but the options are fewer and the work to open them is harder.

If a first motion or response has already been filed and rejected, or if default has already been entered, a fresh analysis of what went wrong and what is still open is the appropriate next step. To discuss the specifics of your matter, contact Tutamen at info@tutamenlaw.com.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – federal defense for marketplace sellers named as defendants in IP suits
• Amazon Account Reinstatement – account deactivation appeals and Plan of Action preparation

Frequently asked questions about default judgment in a Schedule A case

How long does resolving default judgment in a Schedule A case usually take on Amazon US?

There is no single answer, because the timeline depends on where in the procedural sequence the seller engages and which court the case is in. Resolving a TRO and reaching a settlement before default judgment can take several weeks to a few months. Vacating an already-entered default under Rule 55(c) typically adds time to that schedule. Challenging a final default judgment under Rule 60(b) is a slower process still, and outcomes are less predictable. Acting at the earliest stage – before the show-cause hearing – keeps the timeline shortest and the options widest.

What are the main risks if I handle default judgment in a Schedule A case alone?

The primary risk is missing a procedural deadline and converting a recoverable situation into a final judgment. Entry of default, the default-judgment motion, and the show-cause hearing each carry their own deadlines. A seller who files an incomplete or misdirected response – for instance, emailing the plaintiff's counsel rather than filing on the federal docket – may be treated as not having responded at all. Beyond procedure, the strategic choices at each stage – whether to contest jurisdiction, whether to negotiate, what evidence to submit – require a reading of the specific complaint, the court's local rules, and the plaintiff's litigation history, none of which is accessible without practice-area experience.

Do I need a lawyer for default judgment in a Schedule A case?

A corporation or LLC cannot appear in federal court without an attorney – this is a hard rule. An individual seller can appear pro se, but the procedural complexity of federal civil practice, the tight deadlines, and the strategic stakes in Schedule A litigation make self-representation a significant risk. In matters we handle, the difference between a seller who appeared with counsel at the show-cause stage and one who filed a brief pro se letter typically shows up in whether the court considers the defense at all. Attorney representation is not a formality here; it is the mechanism through which the seller's arguments actually reach the court.

About Tutamen

Tutamen is an independent law firm for online marketplace sellers. We represent Amazon, Walmart, Etsy and eBay sellers in account deactivations, frozen-funds recovery, intellectual-property disputes, arbitration and Notices of Dispute, and US federal Schedule A defense, plus EU marketplace regulation. Our work is attorney-led and confidential, with fees quoted up front. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. Every Schedule A matter is reviewed by a practicing attorney, and our fee structure is fixed and disclosed before any engagement begins. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Byline: Sofia Marchetti – Partner, Schedule A / Federal Defense

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Marketplace policies and the law change, and every account and case is different. For advice on your situation, contact Tutamen at info@tutamenlaw.com.