Concurring Opinion Reinforces Flexibility Under Rule 54(c)
Judge Kennelly emphasized that plaintiffs are not obligated to specify an exact amount of damages in their pleadings and that doing so is not required under Rule 54(c). Instead, he said plaintiffs may seek “an appropriate amount” to be later determined by the court based on evidence.
He added that the “appropriate procedural step” is to present the court with the requested amount and supporting documentation so that a proper award can be assessed.
Case Background and Next Steps
Xiamen never filed a response in the case, prompting the initial default. Now, the Ninth Circuit’s reversal means AirDoctor’s damages and fees request will return to the district court for reconsideration.
AirDoctor is represented by Peter Farnese of Farnese PC and Ashly E. Sands of Epstein Drangel LLP. Counsel for Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co. Ltd. was not listed in court filings, and representatives for both parties did not respond to requests for comment as of Friday.
The case is AirDoctor LLC v. Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co. Ltd, case number 24-215, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
