Bender

MEMORANDUM

We reinstate the jury’s punitive damage award and reverse the district court’s eonditional grant of a new trial on punitive damages. However, we affirm the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on the award of non-economic damages for missed meal and rest breaks and its conditional grant of a new trial on such damages.

I. Punitive Damages

We reverse the district court’s judgment as a matter of law on the jury’s punitive damage award. Bender and Hinkle met their burden of demonstrating malice by “clear and convincing evidence.” Cal. Civ.Code § 3294 (West 2001). Punitive damages are appropriate when the defendant’s acts are “in blatant violation of law or policy.” Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 433 (1994). Red Lobster 2 failed to comply with a number of California labor code provisions.

Bender and Hinkle also showed that Red Lobster authorized or ratified the illegal conduct at the Oxnard restaurant. See Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 63 Cal. App.4th 1128 , 1151, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510 (1998); Cal. Civ.Code § 3294(b) (West 2001). Moreover, they offered “some evidence” of Red Lobster’s ability to pay the…