UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AIRDOCTOR, LLC, a Delaware No. 24-215 Limited Liability Company, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-05784- Plaintiff - Appellant, GW-AS v. OPINION XIAMEN QICHUANG TRADE CO., LTD.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 22, 2024 San Jose, California

Filed April 11, 2025

Before: Marsha S. Berzon and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge. *

* The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 2 AIRDOCTOR, LLC V. XIAMEN QICHUANG TRADE CO. LTD.

Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge Berzon

SUMMARY **

Default Judgment

Reversing and remanding for further proceedings in an action under the Lanham Act, the panel held that the district court erred in entering default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) but denying the plaintiff’s request for damages. Rule 54(c) provides that a default judgment “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” The district court denied the plaintiff’s request for damages because the complaint did not identify an amount of damages sought. Guided by Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that a default judgment of $235,338.89 was permissible under Rule 54(c) where the complaint had alleged that the plaintiff had suffered $71,243.68 in direct losses, “together with additional amounts not yet fully determined”), and agreeing with the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that Rule 54(c) does not prohibit awarding actual damages in a default judgment to a party that sought in its pleadings actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. AIRDOCTOR, LLC V. XIAMEN QICHUANG TRADE CO. LTD. 3

Concurring, Judge Berzon, joined by Judge Kennelly, wrote that Henry was not only dispositive but also correctly decided because neither the language of Rule 54(c) nor practical considerations regarding the ability of defaulting defendants to oppose a default judgment for damages support preclusion of a default damages award where the complaint did not plead a numerical damages amount.

COUNSEL Ashly E. Sands (argued), Epstein Drangel LLP, New York, New York; Peter J. Farnese, Farnese PC, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

OPINION PER CURIAM:

In rendering a final judgment, a district court typically “should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). But when a final judgment is entered because a party to the litigation defaults, the district court’s ability to grant relief is more limited. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) provides that a default judgment “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” In this case, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking, among other forms of relief, actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial. No trial took place, though, because 4 AIRDOCTOR, LLC V. XIAMEN QICHUANG TRADE CO. LTD.

Defendant failed to appear in the litigation. Plaintiff moved for default judgment, seeking injunctive relief and m