Opinion ID: 4470994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, motion for a new trial or remittitur, to the extent Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding reputational harm and willfulness. We conclude, however, that the punitive damages award in this case violated due process and we remand the case with instructions that the district court reduce the award to $1 million. 25 25 In Gore and State Farm, the Supreme Court remanded the cases for “further proceedings not inconsistent with [the] opinion[s].” State Farm, 538 U.S. at 429; Gore, 517 U.S. at 586. Because the record is fully developed in this case, however, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand with instructions for the district court to remit the award to a specific amount, which we have determined is the highest amount that would comply with due process. 69 Case: 17-11447 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 70 of 77 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. 70 Case: 17-11447 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 71 of 77