Indeed, courts to have considered the issue have held to the contrary. The Ross court relied on In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881, 892 (N.D. Cal. 1996), which specifically held that Section 3345 may apply to a claim for punitive damages. Even if the ultimate potential for an unconstitutionally excessive damages award exists, this court does not find that potential to be an adequate basis to bar plaintiff's claim as a matter of law, particularly in light of the Ross and Felton decisions, which this court finds persuasive.

" (Chandler Decl., Ex. F.) In the case of In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881 (N.D.Cal. 1996), the Court addressed the propriety of an award of treble punitive damages under Civil Code § 3345. Although the Court in Felton vacated the award of punitive damages due to the absence of financial worth evidence, it was expressly held that Civil Code § 3345 did apply to an award of punitive damages: "This statute [§ 3345] has not been cited in any reported decision.

Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2005). ZTE's reliance on Griffin v. Felton (In re Felton), 197 B.R. 881, 885 (N.D.Cal. 1996), is unavailing because in that case plaintiffs sued the defendant individually to recover damages he caused, not for the non-dischargeability of his company's debts. Nor did the bankruptcy court err in finding ZTE failed to demonstrate non-dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

"A more deferential standard of review is applied to a bankruptcy court's decision on dischargeability." In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881, 886 (N.D. Cal. 1996); see also In re Young, No. EDCV 11-1628-GW, 2012 WL 5834180, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) (giving "great deference" to the bankruptcy court's findings of fact because they "were made after a full adversary trial"). III.

In determining whether punitive damages are appropriate, the Court " 'cannot make a fully informed determination of whether an award of punitive damages is excessive unless the record contains evidence of [the defendants'] financial condition.' " In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881, 891 (N.D.Cal.1996), quoting,Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105, 110, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348 (1991); see alsoProfessional Seminar Consultants, Inc. v. Sino American Technology Exchange Council, Inc. 727 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1984) (stating that the factors to be considered in fixing a punitive damage award are: (1) the nature of the defendants' acts; (2) the amount of compensatory damages awarded; and (3) the wealth of the defendants). Based on the evidence in the record and the insufficient information presented to the Court regarding, inter alia, defendants' wealth from which to base such a award, the Court declines to award punitive damages.

In determining whether punitive damages are appropriate, the Court "`cannot make a fully informed determination of whether an award of punitive damages is excessive unless the record contains evidence of [the defendants'] financial condition.'" In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881, 891 (N.D. Cal. 1996), quoting, Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105, 110 (1991); see also Professional Seminar Consultants, Inc. v. Sino American Technology Exchange Council, Inc. 727 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1983) (stating that the factors to be considered in fixing a punitive damage award are: (1) the nature of the defendants' acts; (2) the amount of compensatory damages awarded; and (3) the wealth of the defendants). Based on the evidence in the record and the insufficient information presented to the Court regarding, inter alia, defendants' wealth from which to base such a award, the Court declines to award punitive damages.

Findings of Fact ¶¶ 14-31; In re Marcella , 463 B.R. at 222 ("Debtor acts with malice ... by intending or fully expecting to harm the economic interests of creditor."); In re Felton , 197 B.R. 881, 890 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (affirming the bankruptcy court's finding that debtor's inducement of 69-year-old mother to cosign children's loans was "willful and malicious" where debtor knew that children would default and the mother's house would be claim as collateral); In re Powell , 95 B.R. 236, 239 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1989), aff'd 108 B.R. 343 (S.D. Fla. 1989), aff'd sub nom.

Therefore, section 523(a)(2)(A) encompasses more than just common law fraud.Kane v. Torres (In re Torres), Adv. No. 10-90005, 2011 WL 381038, at *5 (Bankr. D. Haw. Feb. 2, 2011) (citing In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881, 889 (N.D. Cal.1996) (conduct creating a false pretense or false representation can justify nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2))); see also Shannon v. Russell (In re Russell), 203 B.R. 303, 312 (Bankr. S. D. Cal. 1996) ("[F]alse representation is an express misrepresentation, while false pretense refers to implied misrepresentation of 'conduct intended to create and foster false impression.'"). Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581, 1586 (2016) ("Congress did not intend 'actual fraud' to mean the same thing as 'a false representation'").

Therefore, section 523(a)(2)(A) encompasses more than just common law fraud.Kane v. Torres (In re Torres), Adv. No. 10–90005, 2011 WL 381038, at *5 (Bankr.D.Haw. Feb. 2, 2011) (citing In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881, 889 (N.D.Cal.1996) (conduct creating a false pretense or false representation can justify nondischarge under section 523(a)(2) )); see also In re Russell , 203 B.R. 303, 312 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1996) “[F]alse representation' is express misrepresentation, while ‘false pretense’ refers to implied misrepresentation of conduct intended to create and foster false impression.”)

A misrepresentation may be either express or implied. In re Felton, 197 B.R. 881, 889 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (conduct creating a false pretense or false representation can justify nondischarge under section 523(a)(2)); see also Capital Corporation v. Weinstein, 31 B.R. 804, 809 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. 1983) ("It is well recognized that silence, or the concealment of a material fact, can be the basis of a false impression which creates a misrepresentation actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A)."). A debtor's misleading conduct intended to convey an inaccurate impression may constitute "false pretenses."