The practical lesson from today's (sole) Ninth Circuit published opinion is that your federal complaint for damages shouldn't request an actual numeric amount, but should instead request damages "in an amount to be proven at trial." That way, in a default judgment, you're not limited to any specific amount pursuant to Rule 54(c), but rather can obtain whatever damages you can prove up. Whereas you'd be limited to the specific amount you requested if you actually set it forth in your complaint.
I'm fine with that rule. Makes sense to me. (Though the district court thought otherwise.)
The only weird thing about the opinion is its composition. The opinion is unsigned and per curiam. But two of the three judges -- Judge Berzon (joined by Judge Kennelly, sitting by designation from the Northern District of Illinois -- write a concurrence that just basically explains at length why the result of the per curiam opinion is correct.
Huh?
The only way I can rationally explain that outcome is to speculate that the third member of the panel, Judge Friedland, wrote the bench memorandum, was assigned the opinion, but then wrote language or reasoning that the other two didn't like -- and the collective crew couldn't compromise. Hence the two similar, but not identical, writings.
In any event, the practical result is the same. Just ask for damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
