Feller v. Petty

── Feller v. Petty ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL FELLER; CRONUS EQUITY, LLC, No. 24-5198 D.C. No. Plaintiff-ctr-defendants - 2:18-cv-03460-KS Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM* DOES, 1 through 25 inclusive, Defendant, ROBERT PETTY, Defendant-ctr-claimant - Appellee. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. PAUL FELLER; CRONUS EQUITY, LLC, No. 24-5199 D.C. No. Plaintiff-ctr-defendants - 2:18-cv-03460-KS Appellees, v. DOES, 1 through 25 inclusive, Defendant, ROBERT PETTY, Defendant-ctr-claimant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Karen L. Stevenson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted April 13, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Paul Feller (“Feller”) and Cronus Equity, LLC (“Cronus”) appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of defendant and cross-claimant Robert Petty (“Petty”) following a bench trial.1 Petty cross-appeals ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 The parties stipulated to a bench trial, with Chief Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson presiding by consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 24-5199 the district court’s partial granting of Feller and Cronus’s first motion to alter or amend the judgment, specifically on the issue of damages. The district court ruled in favor of Petty on Feller and Cronus’s six claims, for defamation, civil extortion, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and injunctive relief. The district court also ruled in favor of Petty on five of Petty’s counterclaims, for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The district court ruled against Petty on his four remaining counterclaims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. See Chaudhry v. Aragón, 68 F.4th 1161, 1171 (9th Cir. 2023). We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to alter or amend a judgment for abuse of discretion. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. 1. Interference Claims Regarding Telecentris, Inc. (“Telecentris”). Feller and Cronus argue that Petty’s knowledge of Feller’s role on the board of directors of Telecentris was sufficient to prove Petty’s knowledge of Feller’s contractual and prospectively beneficial economic relationship with Telecentris, 3 24-5199 relying primarily on Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Russolillo, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1203–04 (C.D. Cal. 2001). In Sebastian, however, the district court, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, concluded tha