“Punitive damages are available under Maryland law in tort actions to punish a defendant for egregiously bad conduct toward the plaintiff, and also to deter the defendant and others contemplating similar behavior.” Quan v. TAB GHA F&B, Inc., Civ. No. TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 4129115, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Allen v. Kavasko Corp., Civ. No. WMN-15-1839, 2015 WL 8757799, at *1-*2 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2015)).
Although these factors were developed to "guide a trial court in determining if a punitive damage award is excessive[,]" id., the parties agree that those same factors are instructive here. (See ECF No. 76 at 10; ECF No. 148 at 8); see also Quan v. TAB GHA F&B, Inc., Civ. No. TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 4129115, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted by, Quan, 2021 WL 6881288 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2021). (1) The gravity of the defendant's wrong;
“Punitive damages are available under Maryland law in tort actions to punish a defendant for egregiously bad conduct toward the plaintiff, and also to deter the defendant and others from contemplating similar behavior.” Quan v. TAB GHA F&B, Inc., Civ. No. TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 4129115, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Allen v. Kavasko Corp., Civ. No. WMN-15-1839, 2015 WL 8757799, at *1-*2 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2015)).
This Court has the authority to enter an award of punitive damages where “Plaintiff has shown by clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant(s)] acted with actual malice in connection with his claims for breach of contract . . . and fraudulent misrepresentation.” Quan v. TAB GHA F&B, Inc., No. CV TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 4129115, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 6881288 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2021). A punitive damages award is appropriate where it “bears a reasonable relationship to the amount of compensatory damages and is sufficient to satisfy the policy goals underlying punitive damages awards.” Id.
In default judgment cases involving fraud, the punitive damages in this District appear to generally range from approximately half to double the compensatory damages award. See, e.g., Quan v. TAB GHA F&B, Inc., Civ. No. TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 4129115, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, Civ. No. TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 6881288 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2021) (awarding punitive damages of $250,000 and compensatory damages were $500,000); Allen v. Kavasko Corp., Civ. No. WMN-15-1839, 2015 WL 8757799, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2015) (awarding punitive damages of $89,530.20 and compensatory damages of $89,530.20); Recycling Sols., Inc. v. Orrs' Env't, LLC, Civ. No. PWG-14-1062, 2015 WL 3948981, at *10 (D. Md. June 26, 2015) (awarding punitive damages of $100,000 and compensatory damages of $88,521); Legacy Inv. & Mgmt., LLC v. Susquehanna Bank, Civ. No. WDQ-12-2877, 2014 WL 5325757, at *11 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2014) (awarding punitive damages of $300,000 and compensatory damages of $159,293.14).
But it independently determines Plaintiffs' alleged damages. Quan v. TAB GHA F&B, Inc., No. CV TDC-18-3397, 2021 WL 4129115, at *1 (D.Md. Sept. 10, 2021).