¶1Appellant challenges the dismissal of his fifth amended complaint against Joan Keenan, claiming that the court should not have dismissed it as to Keenan when it had earlier granted a default against her.1 However, the court dismissed the com*185plaint for failure to state a cause of action. Because the entry of a default constitutes an admission of only the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, see Days Inns Acquisition Corp. v. Hutchinson, 707 So.2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), a complaint which fails to state a cause of action cannot form the basis of a judgment against the defendant. See GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d’DCA 1975). The court did not err in dismissing the complaint against Keenan for failure to state a cause of action, even though it had previously granted a motion for default as to Keenan.2
WARNER, LEVINE, JJ„ and McCANN, JAMES W, Associate Judge, concur.
¶3. Although appellant had brought suit against multiple defendants, Keenan was the only de-fendanl who had been defaulted in the suit.
¶4. Keenan had filed the motion to dismiss before appellant moved for the default as a sanction for discovery violations, which the court granted. Keenan had filed a motion for rehearing or to vacate the default. That motion was still pending when the court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
