Pruett v. Skouteris, 743 F.Supp.2d 718, 727 (W.D. Tenn. 2010) (quoting Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 822 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tenn. 1992)). “[T]he primary purpose of a punitive award is to deter misconduct.
“Punitive damages should operate to punish the defendant and deter others from like offenses.” Pruett v. Skouteris, 743 F.Supp.2d 718, 727 (W.D. Tenn. 2010) (quoting Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tenn.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Tennessee law authorizes an award of punitive damages in “cases involving fraud, malice, gross negligence, oppression, evil motives, conscious indifference, and reckless conduct implying ‘disregard of social obligations.'” Id.
The punitive and treble damages do not appear warranted based on the few facts admitted even under entry of default. While punitive damages are allowed for fraudulent behavior under Tennessee law, “these damages should be ‘awarded only in the most egregious of cases.'” Pruett v. Skouteris, 743 F.Supp.2d 718, 727 (W.D. Tenn. 2010) (quoting Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tenn. 1992)).
“In addition to state law considerations that bear on the question of punitive damages, the United States Supreme Court has noted that an award of punitive damages is subject to constitutional limitations.” Pruett v. Skouteris, 743 F.Supp.2d 718, 728 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). Thus, a “‘grossly excessive punishment' may not be imposed on a tort feasor.
Regarding defendants' net worth and financial condition, the Court notes that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to present any evidence of a defendant's financial condition in order to recover punitive damages. Pruett v. Skouteris, 743 F. Supp. 2d 718, 726-27 (W.D. Tenn. 2010) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, the jury was presented with evidence regarding defendants' financial condition during trial, including balance sheets for Michael Ross.