Case Background
The legal dispute began after an outbreak of political violence occurred on May Day in 2019 at a local cidery in Portland, Oregon. Cider Riot, LLC operated a craft cider business, brewery, and pub on Northeast Couch Street in Portland. Abram Goldman-Armstrong owned and operated the establishment, which he intended to serve as a safe community gathering space. On May 1, 2019, the business hosted an open celebration for International Workers' Day. During this event, a group of approximately 20 individuals affiliated with the right-wing organization Patriot Prayer USA arrived at the property. The group arrived heavily geared in protective armor and openly carried various weapons.
Cause
The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit following a series of hostile confrontations initiated by the visitors. According to the legal complaint, the organizers planned the arrival in advance to force a violent interaction with patrons whom they perceived as political enemies. Prior to the incident, certain group members had publicly stated their desires to purge the local streets through physical force. Upon arriving at the tavern premises around 7:30 p.m., the armed group began screaming at, harassing, and physically menacing the peaceful customers. The tense situation rapidly escalated into severe physical violence when the group members began deploying chemical spray and striking the pub patrons.
Injury
The physical attack resulted in multiple injuries to the tavern customers and caused severe psychological trauma to the owner. One individual suffered a broken vertebra and lost consciousness after a visitor struck her directly on the head with a heavy baton. Other patrons sustained physical trauma from being struck by closed fists, pelted with thrown projectiles, and blinded by streams of pepper spray. Aside from the immediate physical carnage on the property, the violent siege deeply shattered Goldman-Armstrong's sense of personal safety, causing him to suffer intense emotional distress as he watched the crowd attack his business and patrons.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought nominal economic and non-economic damages alongside substantial punitive awards to punish the malicious behavior. For the counts of trespass and intentional interference with economic relations, the Plaintiffs requested nominal damages not to exceed $1 per claim. For the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Goldman-Armstrong requested compensatory damages up to $1,000,000 against each separate Defendant to address his severe mental trauma. Additionally, due to the allegation that the Defendants acted with explicit malice and a total disregard for human safety, the Plaintiffs requested punitive damages between $1 and $9,000,000 against each responsible individual.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Cider Riot, LLC and Abram Goldman-Armstrong
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Juan C. Chavez | Nate Haberman | Adam Wolfe
Defendant(s): Ian Kramer, Christopher Ponte, David Willis, and Mackenzie Lewis
Counsel for Defendant(s): Douglas F. Foley | J. Brad Lewis | James L Buchal
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs argued that the four Defendants actively organized, participated in, or directly advanced a dangerous, unprovoked assault on private property. Under the claim of trespass, the legal counsel asserted that the Defendants unlawfully violated the business's right to peaceful possession by throwing objects onto the land and spraying chemical agents into the crowd. For the claim of emotional distress, the Plaintiffs argued that invading a peaceful tavern and starting group fights exceeded all bounds of socially tolerable behavior, directly causing the owner's severe mental trauma. Lastly, for the economic interference claim, the counsel argued that the Defendants intentionally sabotaged business relationships by harassing customers and investors.
Defense
The defense denied all substantive allegations of wrongdoing and requested a complete dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. The formal responses claimed that any alleged financial or economic losses suffered by the cidery stem entirely from general market forces and pre-existing fiscal problems rather than the specific actions of the visitors. Furthermore, the defensive arguments asserted that the tavern functioned as an active operational headquarters for a criminal enterprise known as Antifa. The defense claimed that equity should not protect such an enterprise from public criticism, arguing that the public demonstrations fell under constitutional free speech protections.
Jury Verdict
The twelve-person jury deliberated at length and returned a verdict holding the Defendants legally accountable for the May Day attack. The jurors reviewed the individual liability of each actor across the multiple claims and entered their final findings on the formal verdict sheets.
Verdict on Trespass
The jury ruled completely in favor of the Plaintiffs on the first count of trespass. The jurors unanimously found that Ian Kramer, Christopher Ponte, and David Willis had unlawfully trespassed on the Cider Riot leasehold property. Based on this finding, the jury declared that Cider Riot, LLC successfully established its entitlement to receive $1 in nominal damages from each of the three liable Defendants.
Verdict on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The jury found mixed liability regarding the owner's claim for emotional distress. The jurors decided that Ian Kramer, Christopher Ponte, and David Willis intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on Abram Goldman-Armstrong. However, the jury cleared Mackenzie Lewis of liability on this specific count, entering a finding of "No" on her individual sheet.
The jury further determined that Kramer, Ponte, and Willis acted entirely in concert with one another under a common plan or design to cause the owner severe mental trauma. Because these three Defendants acted together, the jury awarded Goldman-Armstrong a total of $600,000 in non-economic compensatory damages. The panel calculated this lump sum by assessing exactly $200,000 against each of the three responsible individuals.
Verdict on Intentional Interference with Economic Relations
The jury ruled unanimously in favor of the Plaintiffs on the third count of the lawsuit. The panel decided that all four individuals—Ian Kramer, Mackenzie Lewis, Christopher Ponte, and David Willis—had intentionally interfered with the economic relationships of Cider Riot, LLC. This finding officially entitled the business to collect $1 in nominal damages from each of the four named Defendants.
Punitive Damages Awarded
The jury concluded that the Plaintiffs provided sufficient proof to justify an award of punitive damages against all four individuals to deter future malicious conduct. The jurors assessed distinct punitive financial penalties against each Defendant based on their personal behavior during the assault:
Ian Kramer: The jury ordered Kramer to pay $50,000 in punitive damages.
Mackenzie Lewis: The jury ordered Lewis to pay $10,000 in punitive damages.
Christopher Ponte: The jury ordered Ponte to pay $50,000 in punitive damages.
David Willis: The jury ordered Willis to pay $50,000 in punitive damages.
The foreperson officially signed, dated, and returned the completed verdict form to the Multnomah County Circuit Court on January 30, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
