What to do the day you are served: a seller's primer

A federal process server shows up – or a courthouse envelope arrives – and your Walmart Marketplace balance is already frozen. The order was signed before you received any notice. The case number is unfamiliar, the plaintiff is a brand you may barely recognize, and the paperwork runs to dozens of pages. That moment is disorienting by design. So what actually happens next, and what can still be done?

TL;DRBeing served in a US federal Schedule A case is the start of a legal process, not the end of one. A temporary restraining order (TRO) that freezes your Walmart funds can be challenged, narrowed, or dissolved – and the window to act opens the day you receive the papers. The realistic first steps are: read the order carefully, preserve every piece of documentation you have on your inventory and sourcing, and contact a lawyer who handles Schedule A defense before the next court deadline passes.

This primer walks through the questions sellers ask most urgently the day they are served: what the paperwork means, why the freeze happened without warning, what your procedural options are, and where the real decision points lie. It covers Walmart Marketplace specifically, though the federal procedural mechanics apply across platforms – for broader context, see our complete guide to Schedule A / TRO defense for marketplace sellers.

What does "being served" actually mean in a Schedule A case?

Service of process formally brings you into the federal lawsuit and starts the clock on every subsequent deadline. In a Schedule A case – sometimes called a SAD scheme filing – a brand owner or IP rights holder has filed a complaint in a US federal district court naming dozens or hundreds of marketplace sellers as "Schedule A Defendants." The complaint typically alleges trademark infringement, counterfeiting, or related IP claims. The court is asked to grant emergency relief, including a TRO that freezes the defendants' marketplace accounts and any linked payment processors, before the defendants are even notified.

That sequence – filing, ex parte TRO application, order, then service – is intentional. Plaintiffs argue that advance notice would allow sellers to move funds. Courts, when persuaded, issue the TRO on an ex parte basis, meaning you had no opportunity to argue against it. By the time the envelope reaches you, the freeze is already in place.

The papers you receive will typically include the complaint, the TRO itself, a temporary asset restraint, and a hearing schedule. The TRO usually has a short lifespan – the court must hold a hearing on whether to convert it into a preliminary injunction. That hearing is your first procedural opening. Missing it, or treating it as automatic, is one of the more consequential mistakes sellers make when they act alone.

In matters we handle, sellers often discover that the description of their goods in the complaint is imprecise, or that the joinder of many defendants obscures distinct sourcing situations. Those distinctions matter for the challenge ahead.

Why was my Walmart account frozen before I knew about the case?

The asset freeze on your Walmart Marketplace account flows directly from the TRO. Courts have broad equitable power to preserve assets that may be subject to an eventual judgment, and in IP cases involving online marketplaces, plaintiffs routinely request that the order extend to marketplace balances, payment accounts, and any linked financial accounts. Walmart, like other major marketplaces, complies with valid federal court orders promptly.

The result is that a seller may log in to Seller Center and find their payout suspended – or receive notification from Walmart that the account is under a court-ordered hold – before they have any idea a lawsuit was filed. The freeze is not a finding of liability. It is a provisional measure intended to preserve the plaintiff's ability to collect damages if they ultimately win. That distinction is legally important, but it does not make the commercial reality easier: disbursement stops, FBA-equivalent fulfillment may be disrupted, and inventory sitting in the fulfillment network may be immobilized.

The question sellers ask in this moment is a fair one: can a court really do that without hearing my side? The honest answer is yes – temporarily. But "temporary" is the operative word. The TRO is bounded in time, typically by statute, and the plaintiff must come back to court to convert it into a preliminary injunction. That conversion hearing requires a higher showing. It is the first real opportunity to contest the freeze, challenge the merits, or negotiate terms that release at least a portion of the held balance for operating expenses.

We regularly see sellers who assume the freeze is permanent and stop engaging, which is often the worst outcome they could choose. Inaction has legal consequences: default judgments are entered against defendants who do not appear, and a default judgment in an IP case can include statutory damages that far exceed any frozen balance.

What are the immediate steps the day you receive the papers?

The day you are served, the three things that matter most are reading the order, preserving your records, and getting a lawyer. Everything else can wait a day. Nothing in those three priorities can.

First, read the TRO and the complaint carefully – even if much of the language is unfamiliar. Note the court, the case number, the plaintiff, and critically, the date and time of the next scheduled hearing. Courts set tight timelines in Schedule A cases precisely because of the provisional nature of the relief. The hearing date may be days away.

Second, preserve documentation. Do not delete, modify, or move any records relating to your Walmart product listings, sourcing, invoices, supplier correspondence, or purchase orders. This includes screenshots of your Seller Center listings as they stood before any freeze, all supplier invoices for the products at issue, any certificates of authenticity or authorization letters you hold, and your account performance and sales history. If any of these records exist only in a third-party platform, export or screenshot them now. Evidence that cannot be recovered later cannot be used later.

Third, contact a lawyer who handles Schedule A / TRO defense before the next court deadline. The initial consultation will focus on three things: what the complaint actually alleges, whether the TRO is procedurally vulnerable, and what the realistic options are for your specific situation. For context on how these cases develop on other platforms, our analysis of questions Etsy sellers ask when named as Schedule A defendants covers many of the same procedural mechanics.

What not to do: do not contact the plaintiff's lawyer directly without your own counsel. Do not attempt to move funds from any Walmart or linked payment account covered by the TRO – contempt of court is a real risk. Do not ignore the paperwork on the theory that the case will resolve itself. And do not assume that because other sellers are named alongside you, your situation is identical to theirs.

What are the realistic procedural options after service?

Once you are served, the procedural path branches depending on the strength of the claims against you, the nature of your sourcing, and how quickly you can retain counsel. There is no single route, and the choice of strategy has long-term consequences for both the legal outcome and the commercial cost.

Contesting the TRO or opposing the preliminary injunction is the most aggressive posture. A motion to dissolve or modify the TRO argues that the plaintiff failed to meet the legal requirements for ex parte relief – adequate notice, likelihood of success on the merits, or the balance of hardships. If the TRO is defective on its face, or if your goods are demonstrably authorized or non-infringing, this is often worth pursuing. In matters we handle, procedural defects in SAD scheme filings are not unusual; a careful read of the order and complaint sometimes reveals grounds that were not visible to the seller on day one.

Challenging personal jurisdiction is a distinct and sometimes powerful option. Schedule A cases are frequently filed in a single federal district regardless of where the defendants are located. A seller with no meaningful connection to that district may have valid grounds to contest whether the court has power over them at all. This does not necessarily end the dispute, but it can change the leverage dynamic and the settlement calculus significantly.

Joinder and misjoinder challenges address a different structural feature of these cases. Courts have sometimes found that lumping together dozens of unrelated sellers in a single complaint is procedurally improper. A successful severance motion separates your case from the others, removes you from the pack, and forces the plaintiff to litigate against you individually – often changing the economics of the case from the plaintiff's perspective.

Settlement negotiations run in parallel with or instead of litigation strategy. Many Schedule A cases are resolved by settlement, and the terms – consent judgment, modest payment, removal of listings, release of the account – can be reached at almost any stage. The earlier a defendant engages with competent counsel, the better the negotiating position tends to be, particularly before a default is entered. For comparison on how similar dynamics play out on eBay, see our overview of what a SAD scheme lawsuit means for eBay marketplace sellers.

The decision matrix in practice: if the complaint cites products you can document as authorized or non-infringing, the route is a TRO challenge or injunction opposition on the merits, with settlement remaining on the table. If the procedural filing is defective, a motion to dissolve may be the first step. If jurisdiction is weak, that challenge runs early. If sourcing documentation is thin, a negotiated resolution is likely faster and cheaper than contested litigation – but the terms matter, and entering a consent judgment without understanding its scope can cause lasting account and reputational harm.

What is the myth that stops sellers from acting – and why does it matter?

The most damaging misconception we encounter is the belief that being named in a Schedule A case means the outcome is already decided. It does not. Being named means a plaintiff has filed a complaint and obtained provisional relief. Those are the beginning of a case, not its conclusion.

The myth produces a specific, harmful behavior pattern. A seller receives the papers, reads "trademark counterfeiting" in the complaint, assumes the case is lost, and either does nothing or begins negotiating from a position of assumed guilt. Neither response serves their interests. Inaction leads to default. Negotiating from assumed guilt leads to settlements that are worse than necessary, sometimes including admissions or consent terms that affect the seller's ability to operate on other platforms.

The legal reality is more nuanced. Schedule A complaints are filed in volume. Some allege genuine counterfeiting. Others name sellers whose goods are authorized, grey-market, or simply difficult for the plaintiff to distinguish from infringing product at the complaint stage. The merits vary enormously from defendant to defendant within the same case. A seller who assumes their situation is hopeless because the plaintiff used the word "counterfeit" in a complaint may have strong defenses they never pursued.

Our practice is attorney-led and confidential, with fixed fees quoted up front after a short review. That structure means a seller can find out quickly whether there is a viable defense, what it would cost to pursue it, and what the realistic settlement range looks like – without committing to an open-ended engagement.

If a first response or a default-avoidance motion has already been filed without counsel, or if a prior approach did not resolve the freeze, a second read of the record sometimes identifies what changed and what options remain. Those situations are not unusual in matters we handle.

Before reaching the FAQ, if a TRO was entered against your account and the next hearing is approaching, email info@tutamenlaw.com with the case caption and the hearing date. We will tell you quickly what the papers show and what, if anything, is still open on the timeline you have.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – full practice area covering federal IP defense for marketplace sellers
• IP and Brand Registry disputes – complaint retraction, counter-notice, and rights-owner claim strategy

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving what to do the day you are served usually take on Walmart?

The timeline depends heavily on the strategy. A negotiated settlement can close in a matter of weeks once both sides are engaged, particularly in the early stages of a case before significant litigation costs have accumulated. A contested motion to dissolve the TRO or oppose the preliminary injunction plays out on the court's schedule, which typically means weeks to a few months for the initial hearing phase. Full contested litigation runs considerably longer. The single most important timing factor is how quickly a defendant engages counsel after service – the first hearing is often the most consequential, and it arrives fast. In matters we handle on Walmart and other platforms, early engagement consistently produces a wider range of options than waiting.

What are the main risks if I handle what to do the day you are served alone?

The most serious risk is a default judgment. Federal courts enter default against defendants who do not appear within the required period, and a default judgment in a trademark counterfeiting case can include statutory damages that bear no relationship to the seller's actual sales volume. A frozen Walmart balance is painful; a default judgment is potentially far more consequential and harder to undo. Secondary risks include filing procedurally defective responses that inadvertently waive arguments, negotiating a settlement with adverse terms you did not fully understand, and missing a joinder or jurisdiction challenge that could have changed the trajectory of the case. The procedural rules in federal court are strict and unforgiving.

Do I need a lawyer for what to do the day you are served?

For a federal court matter – which is what a Schedule A TRO defense is – yes. Federal civil procedure is complex, deadlines are often non-extendable, and the consequences of error include default judgment and contempt. Unlike a marketplace appeal, there is no informal path here. A lawyer who handles Schedule A defense specifically will assess whether the TRO is procedurally vulnerable, whether jurisdiction can be challenged, what the settlement range looks like given the specific allegations, and what your sourcing documentation can or cannot support. The question is not whether you need a lawyer but how quickly you can engage one given the hearing schedule you are working with.

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 matter is handled by qualified attorneys, not account managers, and our communications are protected by attorney-client privilege. 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.