9th Cir.

Feller, Et Al. v. Petty, Et Al.

May 4, 2026 ·2:18-cv-03460-KS ·Unpublished · By James Taylor

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment in a civil dispute involving defamation, civil extortion, and stock valuation. The appellate panel found no clear error in the lower court's factual findings regarding the parties' economic relationships and damages calculations.

Background

Plaintiffs Paul Feller and Cronus Equity, LLC appealed a district court judgment following a bench trial presided over by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. The district court had ruled in favor of defendant Robert Petty on claims of defamation, civil extortion, and various forms of interference with contractual and economic relations. Petty also prevailed on five of his counterclaims, including breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, and breach of contract. The district court later partially granted a motion to alter or amend the judgment, reducing damages from twenty point seven million dollars to six point seven five million dollars based on a revised stock valuation.

The court’s reasoning

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The panel rejected the appellants’ arguments regarding their knowledge of contractual relationships, finding the district court’s inferences were not illogical or implausible. The court held that Cronus could be held directly liable for its agent’s actions without a separate alter ego finding. Regarding damages, the court affirmed the use of California Civil Code Section three thousand three hundred thirty-six to value the stock at one dollar per share, deeming the appellants’ higher valuation speculative. The panel also found no inconsistency in the district court’s findings regarding the issuance of stock and the parties’ credibility.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the deference appellate courts give to district courts’ factual findings in bench trials, particularly regarding stock valuation and witness credibility. It clarifies that direct liability for corporate agents can be established without a formal alter ego finding and confirms the application of specific California statutes in calculating conversion damages.