Default judgment in a Schedule A case: what it means for marketplace sellers

TL;DRA default judgment in a Schedule A case is a federal court order entered against a defendant who did not appear or respond to the lawsuit in time. On Amazon US, it typically follows a temporary restraining order that already froze the seller's marketplace funds and listings. The judgment makes that freeze permanent, authorizes the transfer of held funds to the plaintiff, and can attach damages far beyond the balance Amazon holds. The window to challenge a default – or to move to vacate a judgment that has already been entered – is narrow, and every week of inaction closes options.

This analysis covers what that judgment actually means for the account and the business, how the procedural path unfolds, and where the realistic decision points are for a seller who is still inside the case – or who has just discovered one was filed against them.

What is the Schedule A defendant scheme, and how does a case start?

The "Schedule A" model is a mass-enforcement approach used by brand owners – and, in practice, by IP litigation shops that pursue revenue on contingency. A single plaintiff files one federal lawsuit naming dozens or even hundreds of anonymous defendants, identified only by their marketplace store names or seller IDs. The defendants are disclosed on a sealed Schedule A attachment. Courts in certain US districts have become familiar venues for these filings because local rules allow plaintiffs to seek emergency relief before notifying defendants.

The first event a seller learns about is almost always an asset freeze, not a lawsuit summons. Amazon receives a court order – usually a temporary restraining order (TRO) – requiring it to hold the seller's funds and, in many cases, disable the listings. That order is obtained ex parte: the plaintiff argues the case to a judge without the seller present. The seller sees a frozen balance in Seller Central and, if they dig further, may find a reference to a federal case number. That is the first sign the SAD scheme has captured the account.

In our practice, sellers routinely contact us days or even weeks after the freeze, having spent that time trying to reach Amazon's support teams. Amazon cannot release funds under a court order regardless of what a support ticket says. The correct response is to the court, not to Seller Central.

The TRO is temporary. A preliminary injunction hearing is supposed to follow, typically within a short window set by the court. Default enters the picture when a defendant fails to respond before that window closes – or when the complaint itself is served and no answer is filed within the required period under the federal rules. What looks like a temporary freeze can solidify into a permanent, enforceable judgment with very little further action by the plaintiff.

How does a default judgment actually get entered?

Default judgment in a Schedule A case follows the standard two-step federal process, but the timeline can move faster than most sellers expect. First, the plaintiff asks the clerk of court to enter a "clerk's default" – a ministerial notation that the defendant has not appeared. Second, the plaintiff then moves the judge for a default judgment on the merits. In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs commonly request a permanent injunction and statutory damages under the Lanham Act, which allows for a per-counterfeit-use damages award that can be substantial even for a modest-volume seller.

The court is not required to hold a full evidentiary hearing before entering a default judgment. The plaintiff submits declarations and exhibits; the judge rules on the papers. A defendant who has not appeared has no mechanism to contest the damages evidence or challenge the goods identification. The judgment is entered. The asset freeze converts into a damages award. Amazon is then instructed to turn over the held funds to the plaintiff, sometimes with a turnover order directed to the payment processor as well.

What makes this especially damaging for marketplace operators is the timing gap. A seller on Amazon US who primarily does business through FBA may have a rolling reserve, a pending disbursement, and return credits all sitting in the account at different stages. A TRO captures whatever is there at the moment of the order. A default judgment locks that figure in as a partial satisfaction of the award – but the judgment itself can exceed the frozen balance, leaving a deficiency that could be enforced against other assets.

One further procedural point deserves attention. In many Schedule A cases, the complaint is filed under seal. The seller may not have received proper service. Federal rules require proper service of process before a default can properly be entered, and failures in service are one of the key grounds on which defaults are challenged. That is not a guarantee of reversal – it is a legal theory that must be evaluated against the specific record in the case.

What does "default" mean for the Amazon account specifically?

Once a default judgment is entered, the account and funds situation changes character. Before default, the freeze is governed by the TRO or preliminary injunction; it is enforceable but still subject to modification or dissolution by motion. After default, the plaintiff holds a money judgment. That judgment is enforceable under federal law, can be registered in any US district, and may be used to compel turnover of assets beyond the Amazon account.

For the seller's Amazon business, the practical sequence tends to run as follows. Amazon implements the TRO immediately and holds funds. If a preliminary injunction issues, the hold continues. If default judgment follows, Amazon typically executes the turnover on instruction from the plaintiff or the court. The seller's ASINs are often permanently removed by that stage – not because Amazon made an independent policy decision, but because the court order covers them.

The account itself may or may not be terminated under Amazon's own Business Solutions Agreement (BSA). A court order directing fund turnover is separate from an Amazon policy deactivation. In some cases the account remains structurally accessible even after turnover; in others, Amazon treats the underlying trademark or counterfeit findings as a policy basis for termination. Sellers who plan to continue selling on the platform need to address both the court case and the account-health consequences independently. Our practice handles both tracks because they require coordinated strategy, not sequential steps.

For sellers asking whether the judgment has permanently ended the Amazon business: not necessarily. The court record concerns the specific goods in the complaint. A seller with a legitimate catalog of other products, or who operates under a different brand on a different ASIN set, may be able to resume some or all of that business – but only after the legal exposure from the judgment is addressed.

What are the realistic options after a default judgment is entered?

A default judgment is not automatically final in the way a fully litigated judgment is. Federal courts have express authority under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate a default judgment for reasons including lack of proper service, excusable neglect, or fraud on the court. Courts apply a multi-factor analysis that looks at whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by vacatur, and whether the default was the result of culpable conduct.

This is a high bar. It is not a bar that is met simply by saying the seller did not know about the case, though actual lack of notice – particularly where service was defective – can be the strongest argument available. A court that concludes service was properly executed and the defendant simply ignored the summons is far less receptive. The quality of the motion matters enormously.

Consider a concrete example. An accessories seller on Amazon US (winter 2025) was named in a Schedule A complaint alongside more than a hundred other defendants. The TRO issued; funds were frozen. The seller became aware of the freeze several weeks later when disbursements stopped. By the time we were engaged, a clerk's default had been entered but the default judgment motion was still pending. We moved to dissolve the TRO on the basis that the goods in question were a different product category than those identified in the complaint, simultaneously challenged service, and filed an appearance to break the default before the judgment was entered. The case was resolved before a final money judgment issued. That outcome was possible only because there was still a window between clerk's default and judgment.

If the judgment has already been entered, the analysis shifts. The motion to vacate must be filed within a reasonable time, and for certain grounds, within one year of the judgment. Acting promptly on a vacatur theory is therefore not optional – it is structurally required by the timeline the rules impose.

Beyond vacatur, there is settlement. Many Schedule A plaintiffs – and particularly the litigation firms behind these cases – are commercially motivated. They file hundreds of defendants, serve TROs to freeze funds, and expect a significant portion to pay a settlement rather than litigate. A default judgment in hand gives the plaintiff leverage, but it does not necessarily mean they want a contested appeal. In our work, we regularly assess whether settlement opens a faster, lower-cost path to restoring the account and releasing remaining funds, particularly where the judgment amount is defensible against the actual sales record.

There is also the question of joinder. Many Schedule A complaints improperly aggregate unrelated sellers into a single lawsuit on the theory that they are part of a common infringement scheme. Courts have grown increasingly skeptical of this aggregation, and joinder challenges can be a threshold defense – if the case was improperly filed against your account as one of hundreds of unrelated defendants, the court may have lacked a proper basis to group the defendants together. A successful joinder challenge does not necessarily eliminate the liability claim, but it can disrupt the procedural steamroller.

For a fuller procedural map, including the steps from TRO through motion practice, see our step-by-step guide to handling a default judgment in a Schedule A case on Amazon US.

The decision matrix: which path is right for your situation?

Not every Schedule A matter calls for the same response. The right approach depends on a short set of facts that must be reviewed before any filing is made.

If the TRO has issued but no clerk's default has been entered yet – the first priority is to appear in the case immediately, file a motion to dissolve or modify the TRO, and begin building the record. The earlier an appearance is made, the more options remain open. Speed here is not dramatic; it is procedurally necessary. Every day without an appearance is a day the plaintiff can advance toward default.

If the clerk's default has been entered but no default judgment has yet issued, the window is still open. An appearance breaks the default posture; a motion to vacate the clerk's default is typically easier to win than a motion to vacate a final judgment. The strength of the underlying defense – legitimate goods, no infringement, improper joinder, defective service – determines the strategy, but the vehicle is clear.

If a default judgment has already been entered and funds have been turned over, the analysis is harder but not closed. The Rule 60(b) motion is the primary instrument. The timeliness of that motion, the quality of the meritorious-defense showing, and any service defects in the original complaint are the key variables. Settlement as an alternative to the motion is worth evaluating in parallel – not as a surrender, but as a business decision about cost and time. A second Amazon seller named in a Schedule A case (spring 2026) came to us with a default judgment already in place and a transferred balance. We assessed the service record, identified a jurisdictional gap, and negotiated a resolution that recovered a portion of the held funds and secured a consent to the account's reactivation, without full litigation of the 60(b) motion. That path was available specifically because the seller moved quickly once they engaged counsel.

If the concern is that a judgment may be registered in a new district and enforced against non-Amazon assets – real property, other accounts, business receivables – that is a distinct enforcement question. Judgment registration and enforcement under federal law is a known mechanism; ignoring a federal money judgment on the assumption that it only affects the Amazon account is a costly mistake.

For sellers who want to understand the full TRO defense process before reaching the default stage, our complete guide to Schedule A and TRO defense for marketplace sellers covers the full sequence from initial order through resolution. If the matter involves a Walmart account subject to a similar restraining order, our step-by-step guide on moving to dissolve a TRO on Walmart addresses the platform-specific differences.

Common mistakes sellers make when handling this alone

The belief that being named in a Schedule A case means an automatic loss is one of the most consequential myths in marketplace litigation. It is wrong, and it leads sellers to do nothing – which converts a manageable procedural problem into an actual loss.

The second most common mistake is spending the critical early period on Amazon support. Amazon is operating under a court order. No support ticket, escalation, or account health review changes what Amazon can do while the order is in place. The entity that can change the order is the court that issued it. Sellers who spend two or three weeks in Seller Central lose the clearest window for an appearance that could dissolve the TRO before default even enters the picture.

A third error is treating a default judgment as a billing dispute. Sellers sometimes contact the plaintiff's attorneys directly and offer to pay a reduced figure, without counsel. These conversations can constitute admissions, can restart or restart applicable limitation periods, and can inadvertently foreclose defenses. Settlement is a legitimate path – but it should be conducted by counsel who understands the procedural record and the value of the defenses in play.

Fourth: some sellers, when they learn there is a federal case, attempt to transfer assets out of the affected Amazon account or to close the account. A court order that includes asset-freeze language can make such transfers a contempt risk. The precise scope of the order governs what can and cannot be moved. That analysis requires a read of the actual order – not a general assumption.

Being named as a defendant in a SAD scheme case does not mean the complaint's allegations are accurate. Inaccurate complaints are filed. Goods are misidentified. Defendants are added to Schedule A lists without specific evidence of their involvement. These are the arguments that, when timely made, change outcomes. The myth of automatic loss persists because sellers who assume the worst never test whether the facts actually support the complaint.

What Tutamen does in a Schedule A default-judgment matter

When a seller contacts us after discovering a frozen account or a default judgment, the first step is a review of the actual court documents – the complaint, the TRO, the docket, and any service records. That review identifies which procedural posture applies and which arguments are available. We do not offer a standard template response; the record in each case is different, and the theory of relief follows from that record.

In matters at the TRO stage, we move to dissolve or narrow the restraining order, challenge jurisdiction and joinder where the facts support it, and open settlement discussions on better terms while simultaneously litigating the motion. The two tracks – motion practice and settlement – run in parallel because a strong motion improves settlement leverage.

Where a default judgment has already entered, we assess the Rule 60(b) grounds, the timeliness of any motion, and the settlement value of the meritorious-defense showing. We handle the Amazon account track concurrently – pressing for funds release on the terms the court authorizes and addressing any separate BSA-based deactivation that Amazon may have pursued alongside the court process.

Our fees are quoted up front after the initial case review, in a fixed-fee model. Sellers facing a default judgment in a Schedule A matter need to know their legal costs are defined, not open-ended. That is the structure we use in this practice area.

If a first appearance or initial motion has already been filed without counsel and the matter has not gone well, a second read of the record can identify what went wrong and whether the procedural path is still open. We regularly engage on matters that have had prior representation or prior pro se filings.

If a TRO has frozen your account or a default judgment has been entered, the next step is a review of the case documents, not another support ticket to Amazon. Email info@tutamenlaw.com with the case name or your seller ID and we will assess the record and the options that remain open.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – full practice overview for marketplace sellers named in federal IP cases
• Amazon Account Reinstatement – restoring deactivated accounts under the BSA after court or policy action

Frequently asked questions

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

There is no single timeline – the posture of the case when you engage counsel is the dominant factor. A motion to dissolve a TRO before default enters can resolve within weeks if the court sets a prompt hearing. A Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a default judgment that has already been entered involves briefing, potential oral argument, and an appellate dimension if the motion is denied; that process takes several months at a minimum. Settlement, where both parties are motivated, can close faster than contested motion practice. In our experience, cases that are addressed promptly – before the default-judgment stage – resolve significantly faster and at lower cost than those where default has already been entered and funds have already been turned over.

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

The central risk is missing or waiving procedural defenses that cannot be recovered once they are lost. A seller appearing without counsel may fail to challenge service defects in the proper form, may file responsive documents that inadvertently admit key allegations, or may miss the timeliness window for a Rule 60(b) motion. A second significant risk is direct contact with plaintiff's counsel that functions as an unguided negotiation – settlement offers made without understanding the record typically undervalue whatever defenses exist. Federal civil procedure in this context is not intuitive, and errors in the filings create problems that affect not just this case but any appeal.

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

As a practical matter, yes. The procedural vehicles available – motion to dissolve a TRO, challenge to joinder, Rule 60(b) motion to vacate, settlement on terms that include account reactivation and fund release – require court filings that comply with federal procedural rules and local rules of the specific district. The merits of the defense depend on a careful read of the complaint and the goods identification. And the asset-freeze dimension means mistakes carry immediate financial consequences, not just potential future ones. Sellers who appear pro se in Schedule A matters face courts and opposing counsel who handle these cases at high volume; the asymmetry of experience is material. A lawyer who handles Schedule A defense – rather than general commercial litigation – will know the patterns in the complaints, the typical damages theories, and the settlement ranges that actually close cases.

---

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 after a short review. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. Services are available in English and Russian. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

By Noah Brennan – federal litigation & Schedule A analyst, Tutamen.

Page authored by Noah Brennan, Federal Litigation & Schedule A Analyst, Tutamen.

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.