United States v. Koziol

Decision Date13 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 19-50018,19-50018
Citation993 F.3d 1160
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin KOZIOL, aka Benjamin Joseph Donovan, aka Benjamin Joseph Koziol, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Carlton F. Gunn (argued), Pasadena, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Eddie A. Jauregui (argued) Assistant United States Attorney; L. Ashley Aull, Chief, Criminal Appeals Section; Nicola T. Hanna, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Carlos T. Bea and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges, and Gershwin A. Drain,* District Judge.

BADE, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Koziol was convicted of attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), for threatening to file suit against a well-known entertainer asserting salacious and scandalous allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and assault and battery if the entertainer did not settle with Koziol for $1,000,000.1 On appeal, Koziol argues that this court should vacate his conviction and remand with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal because the threat of litigation, even a baseless and bad faith threat, cannot constitute "wrongful" conduct under the Hobbs Act. Koziol also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asserts instructional, evidentiary, and sentencing errors. We affirm his conviction, but remand for resentencing.

I.
A.

On December 25, 2015, the manager for a well-known and successful entertainer reviewed advertisements for "erotic massages" on the website Backpage.com. He sent a text message to a number listed in one of these advertisements to set up an appointment. But the masseuse, Jordan Sweet, was not immediately available and the manager did not want to make a later appointment that day.

A few weeks later, on January 10, 2016, the manager sent another text message to Sweet to schedule an appointment. This time Sweet was available immediately, and she directed the manager to come to her apartment. Once he arrived at Sweet's apartment, the manager disrobed. Sweet directed the manager to lie on a table, covered him with a towel, and proceeded to engage in what the manager described as "light petting." The manager asked Sweet "if there [would be] mutual touching," but Sweet denied the advance and shortly after demanded that the manager leave. The two later exchanged a series of text messages, in which the manager expressed his displeasure with the experience.

A few days later, the manager received a voicemail message on his phone from an attorney, Bobby Saadian. The call, however, was addressed to the entertainer. Saadian alleged that the entertainer had engaged in inappropriate behavior during a massage. When the manager called Saadian in response to the voicemail message, the manager realized that the call was about the manager's encounter with Sweet.

On January 14, 2016, Saadian sent the manager's attorney a letter alleging that the manager "physically and verbally assaulted and battered" Sweet, demanding $250,000 to settle Sweet's claims against the manager, offering the manager "an opportunity to extricate himself from this matter without exposure," and threatening to "promptly file and serve a lawsuit and notify the media of said incident" if the manager did not respond by the next day. In this letter, Sweet's attorney claimed that there was a video that showed the manager at the apartment. On January 26, 2016, the manager entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Sweet, denying the allegations and resolving any potential lawsuit for $225,000. In the settlement agreement, Sweet also released the entertainer from any claims.

Approximately eight months later, in August 2016, Koziol left a voicemail message on the manager's phone and identified himself as Sweet's husband. The manager did not return the call and instead forwarded the message to his attorneys. Shortly after receiving the message, the manager's attorney, Kerry Garvis Wright, called Koziol. Initially, Koziol spoke cryptically, stating that he wanted to speak with the manager "about something that happened a while ago." But soon he spoke more candidly and mentioned the January 10, 2016 massage. Wright suggested that they speak in person; Koziol agreed and said he would contact Wright to schedule a meeting.

But a meeting between Wright and Koziol did not occur. Instead, shortly after the first call, Koziol called again and told Wright he would not meet with her in person. In this second phone conversation Koziol told Wright that he was present the night of the massage, but in the bedroom of the apartment. Koziol also stated that when he left the bedroom and entered the living room, the manager verbally and physically assaulted him. Wright told Koziol that she did not believe him.

Neither the manager nor Wright heard from Koziol for several months after the August 2016 calls. Then, on December 28, 2016, Sherwin Arzani, an attorney representing Koziol, delivered a letter to an attorney who previously represented the entertainer. An identical letter arrived two days later at Wright's firm. In that letter, Koziol's attorney accused the entertainer—not the manager—of physically assaulting and battering Koziol as he protected Sweet from "unwanted physical advances" during the January 2016 massage. He also warned of the possibility of legal action if the entertainer failed to respond to the letter.

In response, Wright sent a letter to Arzani, stating that her firm represented the manager, not the entertainer, and that it was the manager who had been at Sweet's apartment on the night in question. Wright denounced Koziol's allegations as "a complete and utter fabrication." Wright also threatened legal action against both Koziol and Sweet if Koziol persisted in his attempts to extract a further settlement from the manager. Arzani did not respond.

The entertainer and the manager did not hear from Koziol again until October 2017—about ten months after the last contact with Koziol's then-attorney, Arzani, and about twenty-one months after the massage incident. Koziol sent the manager an email trying to contact the entertainer or the entertainer's attorney. The manager forwarded the email to the entertainer's attorney, Reid Hunter, who soon responded.

On October 17, 2017, Koziol replied to Hunter in a lengthy email in which he accused the entertainer of contacting Sweet for a massage in December 2015. The email contained a bevy of additional allegations against the entertainer, including that: (1) he attempted to touch Sweet several times during the massage, (2) he cursed at Sweet and called her "a f[---]ing tease" when she refused his advances, (3) when Koziol attempted to intervene, the entertainer punched him in the face, knocking him unconscious, and (4) the entertainer continued to text Sweet following the encounter, threatening to report Sweet to her apartment management for her illicit business. Koziol further claimed he had a video of the entertainer at the building on the night of the incident, as well as a photograph of his injuries from the entertainer punching him.2 Koziol concluded with the following demand:

I am seeking $1,000,000 in damages on or before Nov 1st 2017. I am also open to a structured settlement. If I don't receive payment by this date, I am prepared to promptly file my complaint and supporting documents with the court. THIS LETTER IS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY!

Hunter responded to Koziol's email with a series of questions to probe Koziol's claims. The two continued to exchange email messages, with Hunter ultimately requesting an extension from Koziol's original November 1, 2017 deadline. Koziol, however, denounced the request as a "stahl [sic] tactic" and indicated that "TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!" Nevertheless, he offered the entertainer a reprieve of one week to consider the offer. Koziol threatened that he would file a complaint with his allegations on November 8, 2017 if he did not receive a settlement. After speaking to the entertainer, Hunter sent an email to Koziol on November 3, 2017 and asked to speak to Koziol by phone to discuss some additional questions. But Koziol refused to speak with Hunter on the phone. Instead, he sent another email and reiterated his demand to settle for $1,000,000, which would "NOT BE RENEWED AFTER" November 7, 2017.

When the deadline came, Hunter replied and rejected Koziol's offer to settle as "ridiculous." Hunter further stated that the entertainer would take legal action against Koziol should he follow through on his threat to file a lawsuit. In reply, Koziol stated that the entertainer's threat of legal action "d[id] not intimidate or deter [him] at all" because he had "no money or assets to go after." Because the entertainer failed to respond, Koziol stated he had "no option other than to move forward with a jury trial." However, Koziol gave the entertainer one last chance to reconsider or counter his settlement offer "ASAP."

On November 10, 2017, Lynn Neils, another of the entertainer's attorneys—and a former federal prosecutor—contacted Koziol on the entertainer's behalf in a letter delivered to Koziol's email account. In that letter, Neils asserted that Koziol's conduct violated a litany of federal and state criminal statutes, including the Hobbs Act. She also advised Koziol that metadata of the photograph purportedly showing Koziol's injuries from the assault "reveals that this photograph was taken nearly a year later—proving that you are utterly lying about the facts."3 Undeterred, Koziol stated that he would "be moving immediately forward to file [his] lawsuit within the next few days." But, once more, he offered the entertainer the chance to settle if he had "a change of heart." The entertainer did not settle, and Koziol never filed his lawsuit.

B.

Nonetheless, legal action soon commenced. On January 19, 2018, a federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • United States v. Yates
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 8, 2021
    ...any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Koziol , 993 F.3d 1160, 1176 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added) (quotations omitted). In the majority's view, there was no "falsity" here as a matter of law because the......
  • United States v. Flucas
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 21, 2022
    ...correctly state the elements of the offense and adequately cover the defendant's theory of the case...." United States v. Koziol , 993 F.3d 1160, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).III. DISCUSSIONFlucas contends that he is entitled to a new trial because th......
  • Joe Schroeder Legacy, LLC v. Serv. 247 of Ill., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 10, 2022
    ...the policies of access and finality that animate our legal system.”). Conversely, and relying solely on United States v. Koziol, 993 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2021), Plaintiffs argue that HLG's threats of litigation constitute extortion. The Koziol Court affirmed a criminal conviction for extorti......
  • Goddess & Baker Wacker L.L.C. v. Sterling Bay Cos.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 22, 2022
    ...basis for liability under § 1951(b). See United States v. Sturman , 49 F.3d 1275, 1281 (7th Cir. 1995) ; see also United States v. Koziol , 993 F.3d 1160, 1182 (9th Cir. 2021). And when the alleged extortion preys upon an existing fear (such as fear of business failure), "a defendant can be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...deceptive investigative techniques of government off‌icials harmless because overwhelming evidence supported conviction); U.S. v. Koziol, 993 F.3d 1160, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2021) (erroneous extortion instruction, including reputational harm, harmless because uncontested evidence clearly estab......
  • General Exemptions and Immunities
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2022
    ...the defendant actually knew its claim was baseless (though this information may inform the inquiry). See also United States v. Koziol, 993 F.3d 1160, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[F]ailure to file [a] threatened lawsuit supports the second prong of the sham exception (improper motive) because ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2022
    ...171 1808 ANTITRUST LAW DEVELOPMENTS (NINTH) Kozeny; United States v., 541 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2008), 1053, 1055 Koziol; United States v., 993 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2021), 1435 Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992), 711 Kraftco Corp., 89 F.T.C. 46 (1977), 457 Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corp.......
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...1175 (8th Cir. 2020) (plain error review where defendant failed to “reasonably inform the district court of the error”); U.S. v. Koziol, 993 F.3d 1160, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (plain error review where defendant’s grounds for alternate jury instruction not specif‌ic); U.S. v. Khan, 989 F.3d 80......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT