Default judgment in a Schedule A case: your questions answered

A federal court order froze your marketplace funds before you even opened the complaint. The first document you saw may have been a payment-processor notice, not a summons. By the time you searched "Schedule A defendant" or "SAD scheme," a default may already have been entered against you – and the damages figure attached to it can run into territory that bears no relationship to anything you actually sold. That gap between what happened and what the court's docket now says is exactly what this page addresses.

TL;DRA default judgment in a Schedule A case is a federal-court ruling entered against a seller who failed to respond to the complaint in time – often because the case was filed under seal, the seller was notified only through the frozen marketplace or payment account, and the response window passed before the seller understood what was happening. Being named does not mean an automatic loss. Courts have well-established procedures for vacating or reopening a default, and the earlier a seller acts after learning of the judgment, the broader the options.

This FAQ hub works through the questions we hear most often from sellers who discover they are a Schedule A defendant after the default has already been entered. Each section below answers one question directly and then explains the underlying mechanics. If you are still in the pre-default window – meaning a temporary restraining order (TRO) is in place but no default has been entered yet – the fuller procedural picture is in our complete guide to Schedule A / TRO defense for sellers.

What is a default judgment in a Schedule A case and how does it happen?

A default judgment in a Schedule A case is a court ruling in the plaintiff's favor that issues automatically when a defendant fails to respond to the complaint by the court's deadline, leaving the plaintiff free to seek damages and permanent injunctive relief without a contested hearing. Understanding why this happens to marketplace sellers – often without any awareness that a case exists – requires a quick walk through how these cases are structured.

Schedule A cases are filed in US federal court by brand owners and their counsel against lists of defendants identified only by a pseudonym (e.g., "the individuals, corporations and associations identified on Schedule A"). The plaintiff typically seeks, and usually receives on an ex-parte basis, a TRO that simultaneously seals the entire case and directs Amazon, PayPal, and other financial platforms to freeze and hold the assets in every identified seller account. Because the case is sealed, the defendant cannot find it through a public search. The first signal most sellers receive is an Account Health alert, a disbursement hold, or a message from a payment processor – none of which explains the legal proceeding causing it.

Once the court lifts the seal (which usually happens when the TRO is served), a deadline to respond to the complaint begins running. In federal court, a defendant generally has a defined number of days to file an answer or a motion after being properly served. Where service has been effected electronically on an email address or through the marketplace platform itself, sellers often miss or misread that notice. When the deadline passes without a response, the plaintiff moves the clerk to enter a default, then moves the court for a default judgment. The court conducts a brief inquest to confirm damages (often awarding statutory damages under the Lanham Act, which allow for significant per-infringement figures without proof of actual loss) and enters a final order.

The result is a judgment for an amount that may vastly exceed the seller's actual sales of the accused product, coupled with a permanent injunction barring the seller from the platform. In many matters we handle, the first thing we do is reconstruct the exact sequence of notices, timestamps, and service attempts – because the adequacy of service is often the key to reopening the default.

Can a default judgment in a Schedule A case actually be reversed?

Yes – federal courts have well-established grounds for vacating a default judgment, and Schedule A cases regularly produce motions to vacate that succeed, particularly where the seller can show that notice was inadequate or that the default was entered before the seller had a fair opportunity to respond. The two primary vehicles are Rule 55(c) (setting aside a default before judgment is entered) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (relief from a final judgment), the latter of which sets out specific grounds including mistake, surprise, newly discovered evidence, fraud, and – most relevant here – the catch-all provision for cases where applying the judgment prospectively would be inequitable.

Courts evaluating a Rule 60(b) motion in a default-judgment context generally apply a three-part test: whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by vacatur, and whether the default resulted from the defendant's culpable conduct (i.e., intentional or willful non-response). In SAD-scheme cases, sellers who were genuinely unaware of the proceeding because it was sealed and served only electronically often have a credible argument on all three prongs – they did not intentionally default, no real prejudice results from allowing the case to be contested, and the underlying infringement claim may be factually disputed.

The outcome of any particular motion turns on the specific facts: the method and timing of service, the sealing order, the evidence of the seller's actual products and supply chain, and the speed with which the seller acts after learning of the judgment. There is no guarantee of vacatur – we do not promise that – but the procedural tools exist, and they are used routinely in this litigation context. Acting quickly is not optional; courts look unfavorably on defendants who learn of a judgment and then wait months before filing.

What does early action look like? It typically means retaining counsel, pulling the case docket, assessing the service record, and deciding within days whether to file an emergency motion. The procedural path is detailed in our resource on dissolving a TRO step by step, which shares significant structural overlap with the motion practice in Schedule A default matters.

What happens to the frozen funds after a default judgment?

Once a default judgment is entered, the asset freeze that started as a TRO typically converts into a mechanism for satisfying the judgment – meaning the plaintiff can seek to have the frozen funds turned over in partial or full satisfaction of the damages award. How quickly that happens depends on the court's order, whether a permanent injunction has been entered, and whether the defendant (you) has appeared and objected.

If no motion to vacate or modify has been filed, the frozen balance can be transferred to the plaintiff – often through an order directing Amazon or a payment processor to release the held funds directly. In practice, this transfer is not always instantaneous; there are court procedures that must be followed, and in some cases platforms require formal documentation before releasing funds. But the window for a seller to intervene narrows sharply once the funds-turnover order is entered.

A motion to modify the asset freeze – distinct from but often filed alongside a motion to vacate the default – is a direct challenge to the freeze itself and can, in appropriate cases, result in partial release of funds that clearly exceed any plausible damages figure. The mechanics of that motion are covered in our guide to modifying an asset freeze step by step. In the matters we work on, pressing both the vacatur and the freeze-modification simultaneously gives the seller the best chance of recovering any portion of the held balance.

One practical point worth understanding: even where the frozen balance is ultimately applied to a judgment, the judgment itself may be challengeable as to its amount. Statutory damages under the Lanham Act are discretionary within a range, and courts have reduced damages on reconsideration where the defendant appears and demonstrates, for instance, that the accused sales were minimal, that the seller had no knowledge of the claimed infringement, or that the plaintiff's claimed harm is disproportionate. None of this happens without the seller appearing in the case.

What is the realistic procedural path after I learn about the judgment?

The realistic path runs through several stages, and the exact sequence depends on where the case sits procedurally when you first appear. Here is how we typically structure the work when a seller comes to us after a default has been entered.

Stage 1 – Case assessment (days 1–3). Pull the full docket, confirm the service record and the dates of each order, identify the judge and the plaintiff's counsel, and determine whether funds-turnover proceedings have been initiated. This assessment tells you whether there is still time to file a timely Rule 60(b) motion, whether an emergency motion is needed to stop a turnover before it occurs, and what the realistic arguments are on the merits.

Stage 2 – Emergency filings, if required. If a turnover order is imminent or has already been entered, the seller may need to file both a motion to vacate the default judgment and an emergency motion to stay the turnover pending resolution of the vacatur motion. Courts in the Northern District of Illinois and other frequent Schedule A venues have procedures for emergency relief, and plaintiffs' counsel typically respond quickly. Speed matters. A day's delay can mean funds are transferred before the motion is heard.

Stage 3 – Merits of the defense. Assuming the default is vacated or the court allows the matter to proceed, the seller needs to put a defense on record. That means an answer to the complaint, and potentially counterclaims or affirmative defenses – that the accused product was genuine, that the seller is an authorized reseller, that there was no trademark infringement, or that joinder of this seller with dozens of others in a single case was improper (misjoinder is a legitimate and frequently litigated issue in SAD-scheme cases).

Stage 4 – Settlement or contested litigation. Most Schedule A cases that reach the defense stage settle. Plaintiffs who bring these cases at scale are often focused on clearing the platform of infringing sellers and recovering costs; they are not uniformly interested in litigating each defendant to judgment where the defendant appears, challenges jurisdiction or joinder, and puts a genuine defense on the table. Settlement, where appropriate, typically involves a consent injunction on specific products, a payment that reflects actual facts rather than statutory-damages maximums, and – sometimes – partial release of the frozen balance.

If the case does not settle, or where the seller's position genuinely warrants it, contested motion practice and, ultimately, trial are available. In our practice, most matters resolve in Stages 2–4 without reaching a fully contested trial.

What are my real decision points as a Schedule A defendant facing a default?

There are three forks in the road that every seller in this position must navigate, and getting each one right determines the range of outcomes that remain available.

Decision 1 – Act or wait. The most damaging choice a seller can make is to hope the problem resolves itself. It will not. A frozen account stays frozen. A default becomes a judgment. A judgment enables a turnover. At every stage, inaction forecloses options. If a default is entered but no judgment yet exists, the seller has an easier procedural path (Rule 55(c) is a lower standard than Rule 60(b)). If a judgment is entered but no turnover order has issued, the seller still has meaningful options. If a turnover has already been executed, the remaining remedies are more limited and more uncertain. Speed is the single variable most within the seller's control.

Decision 2 – Challenge the default, negotiate, or do both. These are not mutually exclusive. Filing a motion to vacate does not preclude parallel settlement discussions; in fact, a credible motion creates negotiating leverage. If the vacatur motion has strong grounds – for example, demonstrable defects in service, or compelling evidence that the accused product is genuine – the plaintiff may prefer a negotiated resolution to contested litigation. We regularly assess this trade-off and advise clients on which path makes commercial sense given the specific facts of their matter and the platform balance at stake.

Decision 3 – Assess the merits of the underlying claim. A seller who defaulted because they genuinely missed the case – not because they knowingly infringed a trademark – is in a fundamentally different legal position from a seller who knowingly sold counterfeits. Courts distinguish between them, and the defense strategy differs accordingly. Before advising on any particular route, we look at the accused product, the supply chain, and any authorization or provenance documentation the seller has. That review shapes every motion filed and every settlement position taken.

The common myth that being named in a Schedule A case is an automatic loss does not survive contact with the actual procedural record. Sellers who appear, put a defense on the table, and press the correct motions regularly achieve outcomes significantly better than the default judgment figure. The myth persists because the majority of defendants – typically dozens or hundreds named in the same complaint – never appear.

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 how far the case has progressed when the seller first appears, the specific court and judge, the plaintiff's posture, and the complexity of the underlying infringement dispute. That said, the realistic ranges we see in the matters we handle break down roughly as follows.

An emergency motion to stay a turnover, if filed promptly after learning of the case, typically gets a court response within days to a couple of weeks – courts in active Schedule A venues are accustomed to the rhythm of these motions. A Rule 60(b) motion to vacate, briefed on a standard schedule, typically takes several weeks to a few months from filing to decision, depending on the court's calendar and whether the plaintiff files a substantive opposition. If the vacatur succeeds and the case proceeds to a contested stage, settlement discussions can resolve a matter in weeks or months; a fully contested merits phase takes considerably longer.

The practical answer for most sellers is that a motivated, well-counseled defendant can expect the most acute phase – the emergency stay and vacatur motion – to be resolved within a matter of weeks. What happens after that depends on the strength of the defense and the plaintiff's appetite for continued litigation.

One timeline variable that sellers often underestimate: the Amazon account itself may remain suspended, and the balance may remain frozen, throughout the litigation. Planning for that cash-flow gap – managing inventory, supplier payments, and operating costs during the dispute – is part of the commercial reality of fighting one of these cases. It is not a reason to default; it is a reason to move quickly and to make a realistic assessment of the merits early.

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

The principal risk of self-representation is procedural: federal litigation has strict rules on timing, form, and service, and a poorly filed motion – even one that has the right legal argument – can be denied on procedural grounds, leaving the seller in a worse position than before filing. In Schedule A cases specifically, the plaintiff's counsel is virtually always a specialist firm that files these cases at volume and knows exactly what the court requires. An unrepresented seller, reading the rules for the first time under time pressure, is operating at a significant structural disadvantage.

Beyond procedure, the merits analysis requires knowing which arguments courts in the specific venue have accepted or rejected in prior Schedule A motions. An argument that sounds compelling on first reading may have been consistently rejected by that judge; a more technical argument about service defects or misjoinder may have a strong track record. A seller without that institutional knowledge will make arguments in the wrong order or miss the best one entirely.

There is also the settlement dimension. Plaintiffs in these cases deal with sellers' counsel on a known basis; they know what terms are realistic. An unrepresented defendant trying to open settlement discussions is, in our experience, more likely to receive a take-it-or-leave-it response on unfavorable terms, because the plaintiff's calculation of litigation cost changes when the other side has no counsel.

Finally, there is the risk of inadvertently worsening the record. Statements made in pro se filings – particularly factual concessions or admissions about the accused product – can create evidence that is used against the seller in subsequent proceedings. What a seller says in a pro se motion is on the public record and may later be cited as a party admission.

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

Strictly speaking, individuals can represent themselves in federal court; corporations cannot (they must be represented by counsel). For an individual seller, self-representation is legally permissible but, for the reasons set out in the section above, carries serious procedural and strategic risks in Schedule A matters. For a business entity named as a defendant – an LLC, corporation, or similar – retaining counsel is not optional; the entity cannot file its own motions.

The more useful question is whether the cost of representation is proportionate to what is at stake. In the matters we handle, the frozen balance typically represents weeks or months of the seller's business revenue. The default judgment figure, if left unchallenged, can be significantly larger. The fees we charge for Schedule A defense are a fixed engagement, quoted up front after a short review of the case – not an open-ended retainer that scales unpredictably. When sellers weigh that fee against the alternative (a permanent injunction, a satisfied judgment drawn from their frozen funds, and no ability to return to the platform), the cost-benefit analysis generally favors representation.

We are also realistic about cases where the facts do not support a strong defense. If the accused product was genuinely counterfeit and the seller has no provenance documentation, the realistic options are narrower, and we say so. The initial case review exists precisely to give the seller an honest picture before committing to a course of action.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – full practice overview for US federal marketplace defendants
• Amazon Reinstatement – account deactivation and Plan of Action work for Seller Central suspensions

If a first attempt to engage with the court or the plaintiff's counsel already came back without progress, a second read can identify exactly where the approach fell short and what procedural options, if any, remain open. To discuss your situation confidentially, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Frequently asked questions

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

The timeline varies significantly depending on how far the case has progressed when the seller first appears. An emergency motion to stay a pending funds turnover can receive a court response within days to a couple of weeks. A motion to vacate the default judgment typically takes several weeks to a few months from filing to decision. If the case moves to a contested phase or settlement negotiations, resolution can take additional months. The earliest stages – emergency stay and vacatur – are where speed is most critical, and sellers who act immediately after learning of the judgment have the widest range of procedural options.

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

The primary risks are procedural and strategic. Federal court rules on timing and form are strict, and a technically defective motion can be denied on procedural grounds regardless of its legal merit. Plaintiff's counsel in Schedule A cases are specialists who file these matters routinely; an unrepresented seller faces a structural disadvantage in both motion practice and settlement negotiations. There is also the risk of inadvertently creating admissions or concessions in pro se filings that can be used against the seller later in the same or related proceedings.

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

Business entities named as defendants – LLCs, corporations – must have counsel to appear in federal court; they cannot file their own motions. Individual sellers can represent themselves but face the full complexity of federal civil procedure and specialist plaintiff's firms without institutional knowledge of the venue or the cases. For most sellers, the frozen funds and the default judgment figure together make the cost of representation proportionate. Tutamen offers a fixed engagement fee quoted up front after a short review, which makes the cost-benefit calculation concrete from the first conversation.

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. Two grounded reasons sellers choose us for Schedule A matters: every engagement is attorney-led from the first review to the final filing, and every fee is fixed and disclosed before you commit to anything. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

By Sofia Marchetti – Partner, Schedule A / Federal Defense, Tutamen

Published January 21, 2027

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.