What sellers should know about named as a Schedule A defendant now

A federal court order can freeze an Amazon seller's account and hold funds before the seller receives any notice of a lawsuit. That is not an edge case in Schedule A litigation – it is the design. Plaintiffs in these cases file under seal, obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an asset freeze in a single ex parte hearing, and only then serve the defendants. By the time a seller learns the case exists, the damage to cash flow is already underway.

TL;DRBeing named as a Schedule A defendant means a US federal court has issued a TRO that freezes your marketplace accounts and associated funds, typically before you receive service of the complaint. The designation does not mean you have lost – most Schedule A cases resolve through a motion to dissolve or narrow the TRO, a challenge to jurisdiction or joinder, or a negotiated settlement. The first priority is a fast legal read of the specific order and complaint, because the window to respond is short and the options narrow with each passing day.

This briefing explains what the Schedule A procedure actually is, how the procedural path unfolds in practice, and where a seller's real decision points lie.

What does it actually mean to be named as a Schedule A defendant?

A Schedule A complaint is a federal intellectual-property lawsuit – most commonly for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act – that names defendants not by their legal names in the complaint caption, but on a sealed exhibit attached to the filing: the "Schedule A." Plaintiffs typically list dozens to hundreds of online marketplace sellers on that schedule, alleging they sell counterfeit or infringing goods.

The strategy behind the SAD scheme – sometimes called the "Schedule A Defendants" scheme – is procedural as much as substantive. By filing under seal in a single district, often before the defendants have any notice, the plaintiff can obtain from the court, in one hearing and without opposition, a TRO and an order directing platforms like Amazon to freeze the defendant seller's account, listings, and any funds held by the platform or by associated payment processors.

The asset freeze is the operative harm. Inventory cannot be sold. Disbursements stop. The seller's operating cash, sometimes representing weeks or months of revenue held in Amazon's reserve cycle, becomes inaccessible. In matters we handle, sellers routinely describe discovering the freeze when they attempt to process a disbursement or notice that their listings have been pulled – not when a process server arrives at their door.

Being on the schedule does not establish liability. It establishes jurisdiction-by-TRO. That distinction matters enormously to the defense strategy, and it is the first thing we explain to a seller who contacts us after a freeze.

How does the procedural path unfold after the TRO issues?

The procedural sequence in a Schedule A case follows a compressed federal-court timeline, and each stage has decision points that directly affect what options remain open.

Service and notice. After the court grants the TRO and the platform complies with the freeze order, the plaintiff proceeds to serve defendants. Service on foreign sellers – and a significant proportion of Schedule A defendants are non-US entities selling on Amazon US – can occur by alternative means authorized by the court, including email to the account address on file. Sellers who miss service notices because they go to an unmonitored inbox can find themselves in default proceedings.

The preliminary-injunction hearing. A TRO is temporary by design. Courts schedule a preliminary-injunction hearing, typically within a period of days or weeks depending on the order. That hearing is the first formal adversarial proceeding, and it is the principal opportunity to challenge the freeze and the underlying claims. Missing the preliminary-injunction stage without counsel is one of the most consequential mistakes a seller can make. An uncontested preliminary injunction can remain in place for the duration of litigation, and a default judgment can follow if the seller simply does not appear.

Motions to dissolve or modify. Before or at the preliminary-injunction hearing, defense counsel can move to dissolve or narrow the TRO on multiple grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction, improper joinder of unrelated defendants on a single schedule, failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits, or disproportionality of the freeze order relative to any actual harm. In our practice, jurisdiction and joinder challenges are among the most productive early moves because the SAD scheme's aggregation of unrelated sellers on a single schedule has attracted judicial scrutiny in several districts.

Settlement or dismissal. The majority of Schedule A cases that are actively defended – rather than defaulted – resolve before a final merits ruling. Settlement terms vary. A seller may be dismissed from the schedule in exchange for a payment or an undertaking, or the plaintiff may agree to dismiss outright if the defense raises the cost of litigation above the expected recovery from that defendant.

For a detailed procedural walkthrough, see our complete guide to Schedule A TRO defense for sellers.

Why does the asset freeze happen before the seller knows about the lawsuit?

The ex parte, pre-notice freeze is intentional and legally authorized under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a TRO without notice to the adverse party when the applicant's counsel certifies that immediate and irreparable injury will result before the adverse party can be heard. Plaintiffs in Schedule A cases argue that if sellers receive advance notice, they will move funds, change account details, or delist the allegedly infringing products before the court can act.

Courts in certain districts have been receptive to this argument, and the volume of Schedule A filings over time reflects that receptivity. As enforcement automation has tightened and platforms have built more responsive compliance interfaces, the freeze-first mechanism has become more effective – and the gap between the freeze and the seller's awareness of it has, in many cases, widened.

From the seller's perspective, this means the first question is not "did I infringe?" but "what exactly did the court order, and what grounds exist to challenge it now?" Those are distinct inquiries, and confusing them – as sellers who handle the matter alone often do – leads to responses that address the wrong issue.

The steps above describe the standard early path. Your situation turns on the exact language of the TRO, the asserted claims, the district where the case is filed, and the timeline already elapsed – which is what we review first. To get an initial read on your order, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

What are the key decision points for a named seller?

Once a seller is aware of a Schedule A case, the decisions that follow have compounding consequences. Here is how we frame the realistic trade-offs.

Respond or default. Default is almost never the right choice. A default judgment in a federal trademark case can include statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and ongoing liability that extends beyond the Amazon account to any future business the seller operates. Yet sellers who are served in a foreign language, served at an old address, or who simply freeze in uncertainty frequently fail to respond and end up with a default judgment entered against them. The cost of undoing a default is substantially higher than the cost of defending from the outset.

Challenge the TRO or move toward settlement. These are not mutually exclusive. Filing a motion to dissolve the TRO based on jurisdiction or joinder creates immediate leverage in settlement discussions, because it shifts the plaintiff's calculus: litigating against a represented defendant in a district that may not have jurisdiction is more expensive than settling. We regularly see that a well-timed motion to challenge the order produces a settlement offer before any ruling.

Assess the underlying claim. If the seller genuinely sold authorized goods – through a legitimate supply chain, with proper authorization from the rights holder – the defense on the merits is available. If the goods were infringing, the realistic path is a negotiated exit that limits exposure and gets the freeze lifted as quickly as possible. Knowing which of these situations applies requires a candid internal review of the supply chain, and it is something we work through with sellers early in the engagement.

Consider the cost of the freeze itself. Every day the asset freeze continues is a day of lost operating capacity. The business case for fast, competent defense is not only about avoiding a judgment – it is about recovering the use of funds and accounts while the business is still viable. A seller who waits several weeks hoping the situation resolves itself often finds that by the time they engage counsel, the preliminary-injunction stage has passed and the options are narrower.

For a fuller discussion of how sellers in this situation think through their options, see our analysis of real seller options inside a SAD scheme lawsuit.

What is the objection-handler for sellers who think being named means losing?

A common and damaging misconception is that being named on a Schedule A means the case is over – that the plaintiff has already won and the only question is how much to pay. That belief is wrong, and acting on it typically produces exactly the outcome the seller feared.

The TRO is not a judgment. It is an emergency interim order issued without opposition, on a plaintiff's one-sided showing, before any defense has been heard. Courts know this, which is why the Federal Rules require a prompt adversarial hearing and impose time limits on TROs. The preliminary-injunction standard – which the plaintiff must meet to maintain the freeze – is meaningfully higher than the TRO standard, and plaintiffs do not always meet it when challenged.

Jurisdiction and joinder problems in Schedule A cases are real and recurring. Federal courts require personal jurisdiction over each defendant, and the practice of filing a single complaint against dozens of unrelated sellers from different countries, on the theory that they all sold the same allegedly infringing product, has prompted skepticism from courts that have examined the joinder question carefully. Where personal jurisdiction is genuinely absent – a seller with no connection to the forum state – a motion to dismiss can succeed independently of the merits of the IP claim.

In matters we handle, sellers who engage counsel promptly and contest the TRO on procedural grounds often achieve outcomes that a seller who defaults or accepts the freeze passively will never see: a dissolving or narrowing of the freeze, a dismissal from the schedule, or a settlement at a fraction of the amount that would follow a default judgment. Being named is the beginning of a contested proceeding, not the end of one.

What should a seller do in the first 48 to 72 hours?

The practical steps in the first few days matter disproportionately, because the procedural clock starts running from service and because early mistakes – sending emails to the plaintiff directly, making admissions in informal communications, missing a response deadline – are difficult to undo.

Secure all communications about the case. Do not delete any emails, including those from Amazon Seller Central notifying you of a freeze or account action. Do not respond to the plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel directly. Anything communicated before counsel is retained can be used in the proceeding.

Identify the court and the order. The notice you receive from the court or from Amazon will identify the district, the case caption (which may use a placeholder rather than your name), and the TRO itself. Read the order to identify the compliance deadline and the scheduled hearing date. Those dates are the anchors for everything that follows.

Gather your supply-chain documentation. Authorization letters from brand owners or manufacturers, purchase invoices, import records, and any correspondence with suppliers are the foundation of both a merits defense and a settlement negotiation. The better organized this documentation is, the faster counsel can assess the case.

Engage a lawyer who handles Schedule A defense. This is not a matter for general commercial counsel. The procedural dynamics of Schedule A litigation – ex parte TROs, asset freezes on marketplace accounts, alternative service, multi-defendant joinder – are specific enough that a lawyer without experience in this area will spend the first week learning the terrain at the seller's expense. Our practice is built around exactly this kind of case. We move to dissolve or narrow the restraining order, challenge jurisdiction and joinder, and open settlement on better terms when that is the right path.

For a step-by-step account of how to respond once you have an order in hand, see our guide on responding to a temporary restraining order on a seller account the right way.

If a first response or settlement approach has already been attempted and did not resolve the matter, a second read of the order and the response can identify where the gap is and what remains open. Email info@tutamenlaw.com if you have already tried to address the case and want a candid assessment of where things stand.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – full practice area covering TRO defense, asset freezes, and settlement
• Amazon Account Reinstatement – account deactivations and Plan of Action filings on Amazon US and global surfaces

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving named as a Schedule A defendant usually take on Amazon US?

Resolution timelines vary considerably depending on how the case is defended. A successful motion to dissolve the TRO on jurisdiction or joinder grounds can produce a result within weeks of filing. A contested case that proceeds through the preliminary-injunction stage and into settlement negotiations typically takes several months. Cases that go to a final merits ruling take longer still. The most important variable is how quickly counsel can engage and file – early action almost always shortens the overall timeline and expands the available options.

What are the main risks if I handle named as a Schedule A defendant alone?

The primary risks are missing the preliminary-injunction hearing, failing to raise available defenses on jurisdiction or joinder, making inadvertent admissions in direct communications with plaintiff's counsel, and ultimately receiving a default judgment that includes statutory damages and a permanent injunction. Default judgments in federal trademark cases can be significant and can attach to the individual, not just the marketplace account. Sellers who handle the matter alone also typically fail to obtain a dissolution or narrowing of the asset freeze, meaning the funds remain inaccessible throughout a proceeding that could have been resolved faster with representation.

Do I need a lawyer for named as a Schedule A defendant?

Given the federal-court setting, the compressed timelines, and the specific procedural dynamics of Schedule A litigation, retaining counsel who knows this type of case is strongly advisable. General commercial attorneys unfamiliar with the SAD scheme may not recognize the jurisdiction and joinder arguments that are often available. Our firm's work is attorney-led and confidential, with fixed fees quoted up front after a short review of the order and complaint. For an initial assessment, contact us at info@tutamenlaw.com.

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.

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

Page authored by Sofia Marchetti, Partner, Schedule A / Federal Defense, 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.