Global Brother SRI v. Sinun Altun — Court Grants Entry of Default After Holding Amended Complaint Required No New Service

Background

Global Brother SRI, a bookseller, sued Sinun Altun, doing business as "white lilies," in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that Altun misleadingly advertised and sold Global Brother's books through Amazon, including by representing the books as "New." The original complaint, filed July 29, 2025, asserted four causes of action: false advertising and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (the Lanham Act), unjust enrichment, tortious interference with business relationships, and violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Altun was properly served with the summons and original complaint but failed to plead or otherwise defend.

Global Brother first applied for entry of default based on that failure, and after the Court denied its motion for default judgment, it filed a First Amended Complaint on June 6, 2026. The amended pleading expanded the allegations concerning Altun's purchasing information, the source and condition of the books, the materiality of the "New" designation, and the resulting harm to Global Brother. On October 29, 2026, Global Brother moved for entry of default as to the amended complaint. Because the record contained no proof of service of the First Amended Complaint, the Court had to decide whether service was required before default could be entered.

The Court’s Holding

The Court held that service of the First Amended Complaint was not required. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a)(2), no service is required on a party who is in default for failing to appear, although a pleading asserting a new claim for relief against such a party must be served under Rule 4. Comparing the original complaint and the First Amended Complaint, the Court found that both pleadings asserted the same four causes of action arising from the same challenged Amazon listings and representations.

The Court concluded that the amended complaint's expanded allegations merely elaborated on the existing claims and did not assert a new claim for relief against Altun. Because Altun was already in default for failing to appear when the amended complaint was filed, and because that pleading asserted no new claim, the absence of proof of service did not preclude entry of default. The Court therefore granted the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to enter default under Rule 55(a) against Altun, with the order dated October 30, 2026.

Key Takeaways

• A defendant already in default for failing to appear need not be served with an amended complaint that merely elaborates on existing claims without asserting new claims for relief.
• Rule 5(a)(2)'s exception requires service under Rule 4 only when the amended pleading actually asserts a new claim for relief, not when it expands factual allegations supporting existing claims.
• Courts determine whether an amended pleading asserts new claims by comparing it to the original, focusing on whether the causes of action and the underlying challenged conduct remain the same.
• Entry of default under Rule 55(a) is proper when the defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend and any required service has been satisfied or excused.
• This order addresses entry of default only; it does not enter default judgment and does not resolve the merits of the Lanham Act or state-law claims.

Why It Matters

The order clarifies the interplay between Rules 55(a) and 5(a)(2) in default practice: a defendant who has already defaulted by failing to appear cannot block entry of default by pointing to the lack of service of an amended complaint that adds no new claim for relief. The ruling streamlines the path toward default judgment for plaintiffs facing nonresponsive defendants, so plaintiffs need not repeatedly serve defendants who have declined to participate.

For intellectual-property and consumer-protection litigators, the decision shows that Lanham Act false-advertising claims under § 1125(a), alongside related state-law claims, can proceed efficiently toward default when defendants ignore suit, provided amended pleadings stay within the original claims. The ruling is procedural in effect and decides no question of liability.