Rel: 08/2 9/2014

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter

. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions , Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alab a m a 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typ o g r aphical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter

.



# SUPRE ME CO URT O F ALA BAMA

SPEC IAL T ERM, 2014

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
10917 58

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Targe t Med ia Pa rtner s Ope ratin g Com pany, LLC, and E d Lea der

v.

Speci alty Marke ting Corpo ratio n d/b /a Tr uck M arket News

Appea l fro m Cal houn Circu it Co urt

(CV-0 7-900 201)

On Re turn to Re mand

PER C URIAM

.

The defen dants , Targe t Media Partn ers Opera ting Compa ny,

LLC ("Tar get Media "), and Ed Leade r, appea led from a judgm ent

enter ed in favor of the pla i n t i ff, Speci alty Marke ting10917 58

Corpo ratio n d/b /a Tr uck M arket News ("Sp ecial ty Ma rketi ng").

Speci alty Marke ting had sued Targe t Media and Leade r, alleg ing

breac h-of- contr act claim s again st Targe t Media and fraud ulent

misre prese ntati on an d pro misso ry-fr aud c laims agai nst T arget

Media and Leade r. Targ e t M e d i a had filed a count ercla im

alleg ing breac h-of- contr act claim s again st Speci alty

Marke ting. A jury retur ned verdi cts in favor of Spec i a l ty

Marke ting on its breac h-of- contr act claim , award ing

compe nsato ry damag es of $851, 552; in favor of Targe t Media on

its breac h-of- contr act count ercla im, award ing compe ns a tory

damag es of $48,8 00; in favor o f Speci alty Marke ting and

again st Targe t Media on Speci alty Marke ting' s promi ssory -frau d

claim , award ing compe nsato ry damag es of $210, 000 and punit ive

damag es of $630, 000; in favor of Leade r on Speci alty

Marke ting' s promi ssory -frau d claim ; and in favor of Speci alty

Marke ting and again st Targe t Media and Leade r on Spec i alty

Marke ti n g's fraud ulent -misr epres entat ion claim , award ing

compe nsato ry da mages of $167, 800 and punit ive damag es of

$503, 400. The trial court enter ed a judgm ent on that verdi ct.

This Court affir med the judgm en t a s to the compe nsato rydamag es award s but reman ded the cause with instr uctio ns for

210917 58

the trial court to hold a heari ng on the quest ion wheth er the

punit ive-d amage s award s are exces sive. See Targe t Medi a

Partn ers Opera ting Co. v. Spe c i a l t y Marke ting Corp. , [Ms.

10917 58, Septe mber 6, 2013]
___ So. 3d
___ (Ala. 2013) (Park er

and Wise, JJ., concu rred; Moore , C.J., and Shaw and B r y a n,

JJ., con c urred in the resul t; Murdo ck, J., concu rred in the

ratio nale in part and concu rred in the resul t; and St u a r t,

Bolin , and Main, JJ., concu rred in part and dis s e n t e d in

p a rt). Pursu ant to our instr uctio ns, the trial court , o n

Janua ry 17 , 201 4, he ld a heari ng pu rsuan t to Hammo nd v. City

of Gadsd en, 493 So. 2d 1374 (Ala. 1986) , and Green Oil Co. v.

Horns by, 5 3 9 So. 2d 218 (Ala. 1989) , at the concl usion of

which the trial court reaff irmed the punit ive-d amage s award s.

T h e trial court made its retur n to this Court on Marc h 2 4 ,

2 0 1 4

. The only issue now befor e this Court is wheth e r t h e
punit ive-d amage s award s are, as T a r get Media and Leade r

conte nd, e xcess ive.

Th e trial court enter ed the follo wing thoro ugh and well

reaso ned o rder on re mand:

"This matte r com e s b efore the court on reman d from the Supre me Court of Alaba ma. Pursu ant to the Court 's o p inion of Septe mber 6, 2013, a Hammo nd/Gr een Oil heari ng was held on Janu a r y 17,

310917 58

2014, to review the punit ive damag es award ed by the j u r y in this cause and to consi der the argum ent s made by defen dant Targe t M edia Partn ers Opera ting Compa ny, LLC (here inaft er 'Targ et [Medi a]'), and defen dant Ed Leade r in their motio ns for remit titur

. The punit ive damag es were retur n e d by the jury on [Spec ialty Marke ting] 's claim s of fraud ulent misre prese ntati on as to Targe t [Medi a] and Leade r and o n [Spec ialty Marke ting] 's promi ssory -frau d claim as to defen dant Targe t [Medi a]. Speci fical ly, the jury retur ned a verdi ct again st defen dant Targe t [Medi a] o n the claim for promi ssory fraud in the

amoun t of $210, 000 in c o mpens atory damag es and $630, 000 in punit ive damag es. The jury retur ned a verdi ct again st defen dant Targe t [Medi a] and d e f e ndant Leade r on the claim for fraud [ulen t] misre prese ntati on in the a m o unt of $167, 800 in compe nsato ry damag es and $503, 400 in punit ive damag es.

"This was a well- tried case on behal f o f a ll parti es. The c o u r t has caref ully consi dered the brief s and argum ents submi tted by t h e p artie s as well as the evide nce prese nted at the Hammo nd/Gr een Oil heari ng held on Janua ry 17 , 2 0 1 4

. This court has thoug htful ly consi dered the testi mony of eac h and every witne ss w ho testi fied durin g this almos t two-w eek trial as well as the atten tive j u ry who deci d e d the case. With regar d to [Targ et Media 's and Leade r's] motio ns for remit titur , the court has analy zed the Hammo nd/Gr een Oil facto rs, which the

c ourt is duty- bound to consi der. The court , afte r caref ul consi de r ation of all the Hammo nd/Gr een Oil facto rs, finds that there is no legal bas is justi fying remit titur of the punit ive damag es verdi ct retur ned by the jury in thi s case. The court find s t h at there was subst antia l evide nce justi fying and suppo rting the verdi ct as to a l l of t h e named defen dants

. There is no compe lling justi ficat ion for this cour t to remit the award in this case. The jur y ' s a w a rd in this case is consi stent with, and in line with, judgm en t s that

410917 58

hav e been affir med by the Alaba ma Supre me Court in

recen t yea rs.

"In asses sing the appro priat eness of the amoun t of a punit ive damag es verdi ct and judgm ent, the Alaba ma Supre me Court and the Unite d State s Supre me Court have provi ded certa in guide lines or facto rs for a trial court to consi der. I n BMW of North Ameri c a , Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996 ), and Green Oil Co. v. Horns by, 539 So. 2d 218 ( A l a. 1989) , most of these guide lines are set forth

. The facto rs t o be consi dered under Green Oil and the

assoc iated case of Hammo nd v. City of Gadsd en , 493 So. 2d 1374 (Ala. 1986) , as state d in Green Oil, are as fo llows :

"'(1) Punit ive damag es shoul d bear a
reaso nable relat ionsh ip to the harm that is likel y to occur from the defen dant' s
co n d u c t as well as to the harm that actua lly has occur red. If the actua l or likel y harm is sligh t, the da m a g e s shoul d be relat ively small ; if griev ous, the damag es sh ould be mu ch gr eater

.
"'(2) The degre e of repre hensi bilit y of the defen dant' s condu ct shoul d be consi dered

. The durat ion of this condu ct, the degre e of the defen dant' s aware ness of any hazar d which his condu ct has cause d or is likel y to cause , and any conce almen t or "cove r-up" of that hazar d, and the exist ence and frequ ency of simil ar past condu ct shoul d all be relev ant in d e t e r m i n i n g t h i s d e g r e e o f repre hensi bilit y.

"'(3) If the wrong ful condu ct was profi table to the defen dant, the punit ive damag es shoul d remov e the profi t and shoul d b e in exces s of the profi t, so that t h e defen dant recog nizes a lo ss.

510917 58

"'(4) The finan cial posit ion of the defen dant would be r eleva nt.

"'(5) All the costs of litig ation shoul d be inclu ded, s o as to encou rage plain tiffs to b ring wrong doers to t rial.

"'(6) If crimi nal sancti ons have been i m posed on the defen dant for his condu c t , this shoul d be taken into accou nt in mitig ation of t he pu nitiv e dam ages award

.
"'(7) If there have been other civil actio ns again st the same defen dant, based

on the same condu ct, this shoul d be taken into accou nt in mitig ation of the punit ive damag es aw ard.'

"Gree n Oil , 539 So. 2d at 223- 24.

"The three BMW 'guid epost s' are here numbe red as facto rs (8 ), (9 ), an d (10 ):

"(8) Repre hensi bilit y. The U.S. Supre me Court major ity state d that the most i m porta nt facto r in the analy sis is 'the degre e of repre hensi bilit y of the d efend ant's cond uct.' BMW , [51 7 U.S . at 575].

"(9) Ratio

. The secon d 'guid epost ' i s t h e relat ionsh ip be t ween compe nsato ry and punit ive damag es. Id. a t [58 0].

"(10) Legis lativ e Penal ties. The third 'guid epost ' is a compa rison to compa rable legis lativ e fines and penal ties for compa rable misco nduct

. Id. at [5 83- 84].

"At the heari ng on Janua ry 17, 2014, [Targ et Media and Leade r] prese nted evide nce almos t exclu sivel y in regar d to their respe ctive finan cial posit ions. Howev er, in their brief , [Targ e t Media and Leade r] argue d other facto r s w h ich they felt

610917 58

wer e r e levan t. The court has given de novo revie w to each of the facto rs, and h e r e i n state s the court 's co nclus ions:

"1. Punit ive damag es shoul d bear a reaso nable relat ionsh ip to the harm that i s l ikely to occur from the defen dants ' conduct as well as to the harm that actua lly has occur red. The evide nce prese nted at trial made clear that [Spec i alty Marke ting] was signi fican tly injur ed as a resul t of [Targ et Me dia and Leade r's] condu ct. As state d b y t he Supre me Court in its opini on, 'the jury heard ample evide nce from which it could have found harm' to [Spec i alty Marke ting] as a resul t of [Targ et Media and Leade r's] condu ct. Targe t Media Partn ers Opera ting Co. v. Speci alty M a r k e ting Corp. , [Ms. 10917 58, Septe mber 6, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2013)

. Th e C o u r t went on to say that the evide nce befor e the jurors in this case was suffi cient to find that [Spec ialty Marke ting] 'lost busin ess and profi ts.' Id. [at ___]. In addit ion to the $400, 000 paid to Targe t [Medi a], the evide nce indic ated that [Spec i alty Marke ting] 's expen ses were in exces s of $1,50 0,000 in print in g and shipp ing costs , much of which was lost due to [Targ et M e dia and Leade r's] fraud ulent condu ct. This facto r weigh s in favor of [Spec ialty Mark eting ].

"2. The degre e of repre hensi bilit y o f t h e defen dants ' con d u c t shoul d be consi dered

. The relat ion of this condu ct, the degre e of the defen dant s ' aware ness of any such condu ct and any
conce almen t or cover -up, and the exist enc e a nd frequ ency of simil ar past condu ct shoul d all be relev ant in deter minin g this degre e of repre hensi bilit y. The degre e of repre hensi bilit y he re is extre mely high in that the evide nce estab lishe d that [Targ et Media and Leade r] en t ered into their relat ionsh ip with [Spec ialty Marke ting] and co n t inued that relat ionsh ip for over four (4) years --all the while knowi ng they never inten ded to perfo rm th e ser vices whic h had been prom ised.

710917 58

"The most impor tant facto r the Court shou ld

consi der in deter minin g wheth er a remit t i t u r is

warra nted is the relat ive degre e of the defen dants '

c u lpabi lity. 'Perh aps the most impor tant indic ium of the reaso nable ness of a punit ive damag es award is the degre e of repre hensi bilit y of the defen dants ' condu ct.' BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. at 575. Given the facts prese nted i n this case, it is clear that the evide nce suppo rted a findi ng by t h e jury that [Targ et Media and Leade r's] condu ct was h i g h ly repre hensi ble.

"In i ts op inion , the Supr eme C ourt found :

"'It canno t be dispu ted in this case that the juror s reaso nably could have found that Targe t Media and its princ ipals made fraud ulent misre p resen tatio ns, that those misre prese ntati ons in vo lv ed ma te ri al facts,

an d that those misre prese ntati ons damag ed Speci ality Mark eting .'

"Targ et Me dia, [___ So. 3 d at ___].

"Mobi le Infir mary Assoc iatio n v. Tyler , 981 So. 2d 1077 (Ala. 2007) , makes it clear that repre hensi bilit y is not a mathe matic al formu la based

on a numbe r of wrong ful acts. Howe v e r , the numbe r of wrong ful acts can aggra vate the repre hensi bilit y facto r. The evide nce h e re is that [Targ et Media ] engag ed in this same condu ct prior to enter ing into the relat ionsh ip with [Spec ialty Marke ting] as well

as at the time i t w a s negot iatin g to distr ibute [Spec ialty Mark eting ]'s m agazi nes.

"The evide nce shows that [Ta r g et Media ] never inten ded to fulfi ll the pro m i s es that it made to [Spec ialty Marke ting]

. The evide nce here estab lishe d that in addit ion to the $ 4 0 0,000 paid direc tly to [Targ et Media ], [Spec ialty Marke ting] paid appro ximat ely $900, 000 in print ing costs , appro ximat ely $200, 000 of which the jury could have

810917 58

fou nd was attri buted solel y to magaz ines that were throw n away in Oxfor d, Alaba ma, and that [Spec ialty Marke ting] lost busin ess and profi ts as a resul t of [Targ et Media and Leade r's] condu ct. T h i s court agree s with the state me n t made by [Spec ialty Marke ting] in its brief that 'in the conte xt of the relat ionsh ip be t ween [Spec ialty Marke ting] and [Targ et Media ] in t h i s c ase, there can be no more repre hensi ble condu ct than to lie an d defra ud the other party and to utter ly fail- -inte ntion ally- -to perfo rm the dutie s promi sed.' The evide nce here was clear and convi ncing that [Targ et Media and Leade r's] condu ct was consi stent and conti nuous throu ghout the relat ionsh ip betwe en the parti es. This facto r weigh s heavi ly in favor of [Spec ia l t y Marke ting]

.

"3. If the wrong ful condu ct is profi table to the defen dant, the punit ive damag es shoul d remov e the profi t and shoul d be in exces s of the profi t so that the def e n dant recog nizes a loss. Ex parte Vulca n Mater ials Co., 992 So. 2d 1252 (Ala. 2008)

. In this
case, the total amoun t of punit ive damag es given by the ju r y w as $1,13 3,400

. The evide nce was that [Spec ialty Marke ting] paid [Targ et Media ] $400, 000 for servi ces that were not perfo rmed. [Targ et Media and Leade r] commi tted thems elves to defra uding [Spec ialty Marke ting] and coerc ed emplo yees to

ensur e that the fraud was accom plis h e d

. The evide nce clear ly estab lishe d that [Targ et Media and Leade r] did so to creat e a profit by placing Targe t [Medi a]'s own books ahead of [Spec ialty Marke ting] 's, by destr oying [Spec ialty Marke ting] 's b ooks, and by pocke ting $400, 000 in contr ac t proce eds witho ut worki ng for that money

. Moreo ver,
as note d b y the Supre me Court , [Targ et Media and Leade r] did this never inten ding to fulfi ll the promi ses m ade t o [Sp ecial ty Ma rketi ng].

"This C ourt belie ves that the jury provi ded punit ive damag es in exces s of the profi ts gaine d by [Targ et Media and Leade r] so that [Targ et Media and

910917 58

Lea der have] recog nized a loss which is reaso nable in th e con text of [t heir] cond uct.

"[Tar get Me d i a and Leade r argue ] that there is

no evide nce that defen dant Leade r profi ted from the condu ct under lying the punit ive d a m a g es in this

case. Evide nce at the heari ng estab lishe d that Leade r earne d betwe en $100, 000 and $150, 000 each of the years of the contr actua l relat io nship betwe en Targe t [Medi a] and [Spec ial t y M arket ing]. This would total betwe en $400, 000 and $600, 000 durin g the time frame that [Spec ialty Ma r ketin g] was activ ely being defra uded. The Court finds that profi t gaine d b y Targe t [Medi a] shoul d be imput ed, at least i n p art, to defen dant Leade r, an offic er o f t h e
c o m p any. This is true not only with regar d to money s paid by [Spec ialty Marke ting] direc tly to [Targ et Media ], but also by distr ib u ting and displ aying [Targ et Me d i a]'s books in place of [Spec ia l ty Marke ting] 's books

. This is espec ially true since Leade r was e s t a b lishe d to be one of the point men in accom plish in g the fraud

. This facto r weigh s aga inst remit titur

.

"4. The finan cial posit ion of the defen dant

wou l d b e relev ant. This is the facto r argue d most vehe m e n tly by [Targ et Media and Leade r]. The evide nce prese nted at the Hammo nd/Gr een Oil heari ng

w as almos t exclu sivel y with regar d to this facto r. [Targ et Media ] prese nted finan cial state ments /audi ts showi ng that Targe t Media lost te n s of milli ons of dolla rs b e t ween the years 2008 and 2012, and that Targe t Media cu r rentl y has a negat ive net worth of milli ons of dolla rs. Simil arly , [Targ et Media and Leade r] offer ed evide nce at the heari ng that Ed Leade r has made betwe en $100, 000 a nd $150, 000 per year in his emplo yment with T a r get [Medi a] since 2001; that Leade r i s 'unde rwate r' in his home and has a 'mode st retir ement plan. ' The evide nce at the heari ng was that his reti r e m e n t plan has a few hundr ed th ousan d dol lars in it

.

1010917 58

"[Tar get Media and Leade r] argue d that the

impos ition of $1,13 3,400 again st Targe t [Medi a] 'may very well destr oy it.' [T a r get Media and Leade r] f urthe r argue d that the impos ition of any punit ive damag es again s t Leade r will have the effec t of destr oying him.

"The Alaba ma Supre me Court has state d that 'puni tive damag es s h ould sting , but shoul d not destr oy a defen dant. ' Green Oil [539 So. 2d] at 222. The court has perfo rmed its own d e n o vo exami natio n of the amoun t of the verdi ct, a nd the court can f i nd no valid basis for any remit titur

. A revie w of [Targ et Media 's] finan cial state ments

revea ls that the finan cial healt h of Targe t Media is not likel y to depen d or be large ly affec ted b y the relat ively small punit ive damag es award from this

case. The compa ny conti nues to g e n erate sever al milli on dollars in reven ue each year. In fact, the only witne ss who testi fied on behal f of Targe t Media at the Hammo nd/Gr een Oil heari ng was the indiv idual defen dant and offic er of the corpo ratio n, Ed Leade r. When asked direc tly wheth er this punit ive d amage s award would cripp le or destr oy Targe t Media , Leade r testi fied that he had no infor matio n that that would be t rue, and furth er testi fied that he doubt ed the size of this verdi ct would have much of an effec t in the conte xt o f t he compa ny's curre nt finan cial condi tion. From the evide nce befor e this court , it is evide nt that t h e jury award , while infli cting a sting on Targe t Media , is not sig n ifica nt in terms of th at co mpany 's si ze an d ope ratio ns.

"[Tar get Media and Leade r's] argum ent with regar d to Lead e r is effec tivel y that the punit ive damag es award again st him shoul d be reduc ed to 'zero .' This posit ion shock s the consc ience of the court

. All of the evide nce regard ing the decep tive

a n d fraud ulent condu ct of [Targ et Media ] as it relat es to the fraud /misr epres entat ion claim is also appli cable to Ed Leade r. While the evide nce showe d that the condu ct was carrie d out by many of [Targ et

1110917 58

Media 's] emplo yees, that condu ct was order ed and

overs een by Ed Leade r. The court f i nds that a remit titur (espe cia l l y to zero) would fail to do justi ce and would fail to serve the law's twin aims of speci fic a n d gener al deter rence

. Contr ary to [Targ et Media and Leade r's] argum ent, a judgm ent lien, no matte r how large, is not a finan cial death penal ty. Prese nt Alaba ma law limit s the perce ntage of wage garni shmen t and limit s the effec tive range of a judgm ent t o a m aximu m of 20 ye ars.

"With regar d to both Targe t Media a n d Leade r, the court notes that colle ctibi lity of this judgm ent is not the sole issue in a p u n i t i v e damag es case. T he fact that this judgm ent may be diffi cul t t o colle ct is not the sole inter est or relev ant facto r. An equal ly centr al purpo se of pun i t ive damag es is gener al deter rence --the amoun t of the verdi ct is inten ded as a warni ng to all poten tial corpo rate and indiv idual defen dants not to engag e in inten tiona l, fraud ulent behav ior. A remit titur in this case would mitig ate the effic acy of this verdi ct's value to gener al deter rence

. A remit titur would also disre sp e c t this jury' s work. This facto r weigh s again st re mitti tur.

"5. All t h e c o sts of litig ation shoul d be inclu ded, so as to encou rage plain tiffs t o bring wrong doers to trial

. This facto r has n o t been argue d by the parti es herei n, s o t he court finds that this is a neutr al fa ctor in th is ca se.

"6. If crimi nal sanct ions had been impos e d o n [Targ et Media or Leade r] for [t heir] condu ct, this shoul d be take n into accou nt in litig ation of the punit ive damag e s award

. This facto r is not appli cable

.

"7. If t h e r e had been other civil actio ns again st the same defen dan t s, based on the same condu ct, t h is shoul d be taken into accou nt in litig ation of the punit ive damag es award

. There is

1210917 58

no e viden ce befor e this court of any actio ns based

on the same condu ct.

... This facto r weigh s in favor of [S pecia lty M arket ing].

"8. Repre hensi bilit y. This Unite d State s Supre me Court BMW 'guid epost ' is a lread y discu ssed in No . 2 a bove.

"9. Ratio

. The secon d BMW 'guid epost ' is the relat ionsh ip betwe en compe nsato ry and pun i tive damag es. In this case, the jury retur ned a verdict for compe nsato ry damag es in t he amoun t of $377, 800 in the fraud and prom i ssory -frau d claim s. The punit ive da m a g e s given were in the amoun t of $1,13 3,400

. The ratio of p uniti ve to compe nsato ry damag es he re is 3:1.

"The Alaba m a S uprem e Court has appro ved a 3:1 ratio 'benc hmark .' The 3:1 'benc hmark ' appro ved by th e A l a b ama Supre me Court has been held to be 'pres umpti vely reaso nable .' Prude ntial Balla rd Realt y C o

. v
. Weath erly, 792 So. 2d 1045 (Ala. 2 000). The Supre me Court has furth er held t h a t a ratio of 3:1 w eighs again st a remit titur , witho ut

some speci al justi ficat ion. 'Onl y in the most ext r aordi nary situa tions would the award be deeme d

exces sive when the [puni tive damag es award ] is at or below the bench mark. ' Weath erly [792 S o

. 2d] at 1053; see also South ern Pine Elect ric Coope rativ e v. Burch , 878 So. 2d 1120 (Ala. 2003)

. The Court finds that this case doe s not prese nt a 'most extra ordin ary' situa tion that would dicta te reduc ing the punit ive dam a g e s in this case. This facto r weigh s hea vily in fa vor o f [Sp ecial ty Ma rketi ng].

"10. Legis lativ e penal ties. The third BMW 'guid epost ' is a compa rison to compa rable legis lativ e fines and penal ties for compa rable

m i s c onduc t. Here, the juror s award ed punit ive damag es that do not excee d three times the amoun t of the compe nsato ry damag es award ed. These punit ive damag es are no more than the monet ary penal ties

1310917 58

[Targ et Media and Leade r] c o u l d suffe r under the Alaba ma Decep tive Trade Pract ices Act, Ala. Code 1975 § 8-19

- 1 et seq. That act presc ribes (1) f ines, (2) trebl e compe nsato ry damag es, and (3) an award of cost s and attor ney fees. The compa rable legis lativ e penal ty is virtu ally e quiva lent to the jury' s verdi ct in this case. This facto r weigh s in [Spec ialty Marke ting] 's favor an d again st remit titur

.

"Ther efore , for all these reaso ns, the re q u e st for remit titur by defen dant Targe t Media Partn ers Opera ting Compa ny, LLC, and defen dant Ed Lead er is denie d. The court finds tha t the jury' s punit ive damag es verdi ct again st Targe t Media Partn ers Opera ting Compa ny, LLC, in the amoun t of $630, 000 on [Spec ialty Marke ting] 's claim of promi ssory fraud and the jury' s verdi ct for punit ive damag es again st defen dant Targe t Media Partn ers Opera ting Compa ny, LLC, and defen dant Ed Leade r on [Spec ialty Marke ting] 's claim of fraud [ulen t misre prese ntati on] in the amoun t of $503, 400 [ were] fair, reaso nable and j ustif ied."

We need add nothi ng to t h e t r i al court 's detai led

analy sis o f the BMW of No rth A meric a, In c. v. Gore , 517 U.S.

559 (1996 ), and Hammo nd/Gr een Oil facto rs in this case. After

revie wing that analy sis, we agree that, based on the level of

repre hensi bilit y of the m iscon duct evide nced in th is ca se, a
$630, 000 punit ive-d a mages award again st Targe t Media on the

promi ssory -frau d cla im an d a $ 503,4 00 pu nitiv e-dam ages award

again st Tar g e t M edia and Leade r on the fraud ulent

misre prese ntati on claim are suffi cient to punis h Targe t Media

1410917 58

and Leade r and to deter them from furth er misco nduct , witho ut

compr omisi ng th eir d ue-pr ocess righ ts. The j udgme nt en tered

on the punit ive-d amage s award s of $630, 000 and $503, 4 0 0 is

hereb y aff irmed

.

AFFIR MED.

Moore , C.J., and Parke r, Murdo ck, Shaw, Wise, and Bryan ,
JJ., concu r.

Stuar t, Bo lin, and M ain, JJ., disse nt.

15