What sellers should know about default judgment in a Schedule A case now

TL;DRA default judgment in a Schedule A case is a federal court order entered against a seller who did not appear or respond in time – and it can convert a temporary asset freeze into a permanent money judgment and lasting injunction. Being named as a Schedule A defendant does not mean the case is already lost. There are procedural tools to challenge a default or a default judgment, but the window to use them is short, and what is still open depends directly on how far the case has progressed.

Federal intellectual-property litigation on Amazon US has accelerated. Plaintiffs who use the Schedule A complaint format – naming large groups of marketplace defendants at once – often obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an asset freeze before any defendant is individually notified. By the time a seller recognizes the problem, the funds in their Amazon account may already be locked, their listings may be down, and a default may be weeks away. That sequence is the core of the SAD scheme, and it is what makes early action matter so much.

This briefing covers what default judgment actually is in a Schedule A context, how the procedural path unfolds, and what a seller's real decision points are – including the ones that disappear as time passes.

What is a default judgment in a Schedule A case?

A default judgment is a federal court order entered in a plaintiff's favor because the defendant failed to appear or respond by the deadline set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's scheduling order. In ordinary civil litigation, default is common but rarely catastrophic in the early stages. In a Schedule A case, the consequences are compressed and severe because the framework is designed to move fast.

The typical sequence runs like this. A brand owner or IP rights holder files a single complaint naming dozens or hundreds of online marketplace sellers under a Schedule A exhibit – hence the "Schedule A" label. The complaint usually alleges trademark counterfeiting or copyright infringement. The plaintiff immediately seeks a TRO, asking the court to freeze assets held by Amazon, PayPal, and other payment processors without advance notice to the defendants. Courts in certain federal districts have granted these ex parte TRO applications routinely in IP cases.

Once the TRO is in place, defendants are served – sometimes by email, sometimes through a court-approved alternative method. The notice may arrive in a spam folder, or in a Seller Central message the seller does not check. A response deadline is set. If the seller does nothing, the court enters a default, and then – after a short additional period – a default judgment. That judgment typically includes a permanent injunction and a damages award. Because a default judgment in a Schedule A case often carries statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting, the award can be substantial even without evidence of actual harm.

In matters we handle, sellers frequently discover the case only after the Amazon account is frozen, not before. The shock is compounded when they realize the case may already be days from a default entry. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give the court discretion to set aside a default "for good cause" – but that window tightens once a judgment (as opposed to a mere entry of default) is entered, at which point the standard shifts to the more demanding "excusable neglect" or Rule 60(b) grounds.

Why does the Schedule A / SAD scheme move so quickly against sellers?

The speed of a Schedule A case is a feature, not a side effect – plaintiffs choose the format precisely because it allows rapid asset preservation before defendants can move funds. Several structural elements drive this pace, and sellers who do not understand them consistently misread how much time they have.

First, the TRO is obtained ex parte. That means the court hears only the plaintiff's side before issuing the freeze order. The seller's opportunity to object comes later, at a preliminary injunction hearing, but by then the funds are already locked. For an FBA seller whose disbursements run weekly and whose inventory is already pre-positioned in Amazon's fulfillment centers, even a short freeze creates immediate cash-flow pressure – the inventory bill and the storage fees keep running while the account balance sits untouched.

Second, service on Schedule A defendants is often approved by the court in a non-standard form. Alternative service – typically email to a registered account or to an address listed in the marketplace seller profile – is frequently authorized. A seller who does not monitor a particular email address closely may not receive effective notice until well after the clock started. We regularly see situations where the service was technically proper under the court order but practically invisible to the seller.

Third, many Schedule A complaints are filed in districts with active IP dockets, where scheduling orders move cases briskly. Default deadlines can arrive within a few weeks of service. Once the entry of default is recorded by the clerk, the plaintiff can move for a default judgment quickly.

Understanding this structure answers a common misconception. Many sellers assume they can simply respond to the Amazon Seller Central account freeze through Seller Central channels, explain the situation, and have the hold released. That process – important for understanding the scope of what is frozen – is separate from and does not substitute for a response in federal court. An account health appeal does not stop a federal court deadline.

What happens procedurally if a default judgment is entered?

Once a default judgment is entered against a Schedule A defendant, the plaintiff has a permanent injunction and a damages award enforceable in federal court. The immediate operational effect is that the asset freeze on the Amazon account – initially imposed by the TRO – is no longer just a temporary measure waiting for a preliminary injunction hearing. It becomes the basis for a permanent enforcement mechanism. Amazon and the other frozen platforms will typically maintain the hold pending satisfaction of the judgment or other court direction.

The seller then faces a choice with progressively narrowing options. The main procedural tools are:

• Motion to vacate under Rule 55(c) – if only an entry of default has been recorded (not yet a judgment), the "good cause" standard applies. This is the most accessible window, but it is also the one that closes fastest.
• Motion to vacate under Rule 60(b) – once a judgment has been entered, the seller must show grounds such as excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or that the judgment is void (e.g., for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service). Rule 60(b) motions must typically be filed within a reasonable time, and for certain grounds, within one year of judgment.
• Jurisdictional and service challenges – if the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the seller or service was defective, these are independent grounds to challenge the judgment as void, and they do not expire on the same timeline as merits-based Rule 60(b) grounds.
• Settlement – even after a default judgment, many plaintiffs remain willing to negotiate a resolution, particularly where the seller has a credible defense or the damages award is disproportionate to any real harm. Settlement does not require vacating the judgment first, but the terms are shaped significantly by whether the judgment stands.

The realistic decision point for most sellers is this: acting before a default is entered preserves the most options. Acting after a default but before a judgment preserves good options. Acting after a judgment still has paths, but they are narrower and more demanding to pursue successfully. Waiting to see what happens forecloses paths.

For a full account of what early-stage TRO defense looks like procedurally, see our complete guide to Schedule A / TRO defense for sellers, which covers the pre-default period in depth.

What are the seller's real decision points?

Sellers who contact us after discovering a Schedule A case often frame their question as "what are the chances?" That is the wrong frame at the pre-judgment stage. The more useful frame is: what options still exist right now, and what does each one cost in time, money, and risk?

The first decision is whether to appear at all. A seller who believes the underlying infringement allegation is unfounded – because they were authorized to sell the product, because the intellectual property claim is weak or overbroad, or because they were misidentified as a counterfeiter – has strong reasons to appear and contest the case. Appearing does not mean litigating to trial. It means preserving the ability to negotiate from a position where the plaintiff cannot simply take a default.

The second decision is how to respond. In most Schedule A cases, the operative move at the early stage is a motion to dissolve or modify the TRO and asset freeze, challenging the basis on which the ex parte order was granted. This motion addresses the court directly and creates a hearing record. Even if the court maintains the freeze pending a preliminary injunction hearing, the appearance alone changes the dynamic – the plaintiff must now litigate the preliminary injunction on the merits rather than simply wait for a default. For more on this specific motion, see our briefing on motions to dissolve a TRO.

The third decision is whether to seek a modification of the asset freeze while the litigation continues. A blanket freeze on an Amazon account may capture funds that are not traceable to the allegedly infringing products – for instance, proceeds from entirely separate and non-accused product lines. Courts have discretion to narrow a freeze to the accused products and a reasonable security amount. Pursuing that modification matters commercially because it can release working capital that is frozen only because it happens to sit in the same account. Our briefing on motions to modify an asset freeze lays out how that argument is constructed.

A practical illustration: an electronics accessories seller on Amazon US (summer 2026) contacted us after finding a restraining order on their account. They had never received a Seller Central suspension notice and had monitored only their account health dashboard – not the registered email used for court service. The entry of default had not yet been recorded. We filed an appearance and a motion to dissolve within days, citing service issues and challenging the scope of the freeze; the freeze was subsequently modified to release funds from non-accused product lines while the case was litigated to a negotiated resolution.

A different situation: a fashion accessories seller on Amazon US (winter 2025) came to us after a default judgment had already been entered. The judgment had been entered on statutory damages. We assessed the jurisdictional record and found that service had been accomplished by email to an address that had not been used by the seller for well over a year. We filed a Rule 60(b) motion on void-judgment grounds, obtained a stay of enforcement, and the case ultimately resolved in a settlement that was a fraction of the original judgment figure.

Neither outcome is offered as a guarantee. They illustrate the decision tree: the options available at each stage, and what the procedural record actually contains.

What is still uncertain – and what sellers frequently misread

Being named in a Schedule A case does not mean an automatic loss. That is the most persistent and damaging myth in this area. Sellers who believe a default judgment is inevitable – or who assume the funds are gone regardless – sometimes make the situation worse by taking no action, or by taking action only through Seller Central channels rather than in court.

What is genuinely uncertain in any individual case is the speed at which the plaintiff will move after service, the court's responsiveness to a motion, and the plaintiff's appetite for settlement at any given point. Plaintiffs in the SAD scheme have varying litigation postures – some move aggressively to judgment, others file many cases with the expectation that a share will settle early. Without reviewing the actual case record and plaintiff history, no one can responsibly characterize the plaintiff's likely behavior.

What is not uncertain is the procedural clock. The Federal Rules set the default timeline, and district court scheduling orders frequently compress it further. Acting on a fixed schedule – not on an optimistic assumption about how much time remains – is the only responsible approach.

There is also a recurring misread about the relationship between the Seller Central account freeze and the federal court case. The two are connected – the TRO directs Amazon to freeze the account – but they operate on different tracks. Appealing inside Seller Central does not respond to the court. And conversely, a court order modifying or dissolving the freeze does give Amazon a basis to release the hold, but the platform operates on its own timeline for implementing court orders. We work with sellers to track both tracks simultaneously, because delays on either side extend the period of cash-flow disruption.

The path depends on the BSA version that applies to the account and the specific court's procedural history – which is what we check first, before advising on which motions to prioritize.

If a TRO motion or an initial court response has already been filed and rejected, a second review of the record can identify specifically what failed and whether there is a viable Rule 60(b) ground or a jurisdictional argument that was not raised. To have your situation reviewed, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – federal IP litigation defense for marketplace sellers named in multi-defendant complaints
• Amazon Account Reinstatement – handling policy and performance deactivations through the Plan of Action process

Frequently asked questions

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

There is no single answer, because resolution depends on the procedural posture when the seller first appears, the plaintiff's litigation pace, and what motion practice is required. A Rule 60(b) motion challenging a void judgment on jurisdictional grounds can take several months from filing to decision, not counting any subsequent settlement negotiation. A case where the seller appears before a default is entered and resolves through early settlement can conclude more quickly. The honest answer is that these matters typically take several months from first engagement to final resolution, and that timeline is driven largely by court scheduling and the opposing party's conduct – not solely by the seller's strategy.

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

The primary risk is filing the wrong motion at the wrong procedural stage. A seller who files a Rule 55(c) motion after a judgment has already been entered, or who uses the wrong Rule 60(b) ground, wastes the available window and can foreclose later arguments. Federal procedural rules have hard deadlines and technical requirements that are genuinely difficult to satisfy without experience in the specific type of case. There is also a risk of conceding jurisdiction by appearing in a particular way without properly preserving the jurisdictional challenge. In matters we handle, the most common self-representation problem is a seller who responded substantively to the merits without first raising service or jurisdictional defects – which are often the strongest grounds to vacate.

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

A seller facing a default judgment in a federal Schedule A case is dealing with a federal court proceeding – not a Seller Central appeal or a marketplace dispute mechanism. Federal court practice has its own procedural rules, local rules, and motion practice requirements. The question of whether to retain counsel is a business decision, but the practical reality is that the motions available to challenge a default or default judgment – Rule 55(c), Rule 60(b), jurisdictional void-judgment challenges – require both substantive knowledge of the underlying IP law and procedural precision in federal court. Tutamen handles Schedule A / TRO defense with attorney-led work and fixed fees quoted up front after a short review.

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. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

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.