In Bardis v. Oates (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1, the plaintiff partners sued the managing partner of a real estate partnership for fraud, and breach of contract and tort duties based on allegations of self-dealing, secret markups, and clandestine commissions. The jury awarded the plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant challenged the judgment, claiming the plaintiffs failed to show they were damaged and the punitive damages were excessive under recent case law. (Id. at p. 5.) The appellate court affirmed the compensatory damage award and modified the punitive damage award to comply with the single digit guidepost set by recent case law. (Id. at pp. 16, 25-26.) In Bardis v. Oates (2004) the plaintiffs were awarded $165,527.63 in compensatory damages and $7 million in punitive damages against the defendants in an action involving fraud arising out of a real estate partnership. (Id. at p. 5.) The court in Bardis found the award satisfied the reprehensibility test set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408. This was because the defendants' conduct satisfied the fourth and fifth factors relating to reprehensibility (the conduct involved repeated actions and the harm was the result of intentional fraud, malice and deceit). (Id. at p. 22.) The court noted that the defendant "was unrepentant at trial." (Ibid.) Regarding the ratio of 42 to 1 ($7 million to $165,527.63), the court observed: "We believe it is fair to say the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs was relatively small in comparison to the seriousness of defendants' conduct. The jury verdict leaves no doubt that the individual defendant committed egregious misconduct. The judgment is not based on occasional transgressions; nor was it the product of negligence or sloppy accounting. Fraud and breach of fiduciary duty are universally deplored throughout our society; the jury's award reflects its repugnance at the intentional, oppressive and malicious conduct practiced here. Thus, in our view the compensatory damages figure does not fully reflect the blameworthiness of the acts condemned by the jury." (Id. at p. 23.) The Court in Bardis reduced the punitive damages from $7 million to $1.5 million, for a ratio of 9 to 1. (Id. at pp. 26-27.)