Zoellner’s Motion for Sanctions Against City Of Arcata Denied in Josiah Lawson Homicide Case

David Josiah Lawson and Kyle Zoellner

Kyle Zoellner, arrested for the stabbing death of David Josiah Lawson in 2017, filed for and was denied sanctions against the City of Arcata and co-defendants a week ago Friday.  The murder suspect turned civil plaintiff asked for several points of relief in his recently filed motion for sanctions after having convinced a federal district court jury in San Francisco back in October that a former Arcata Police was at fault for elements of “malicious prosecution” related to Zoellner’s 2017 murder charges. The requested relief and sanctions included over $40 million in attorneys’ fees and a requested reversal of the Judge’s recent Order on Probable Cause, despite the Judge having overturned the jury’s substantial financial award after affirming that probable cause for the arrest was valid.   

Denying all claims made for sanctions, the 2nd District Court judge’s Order concluded, “Plaintiff has not met his burden under either of his cited bases for sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.”   

The first page of Attorney Elizabeth Zareh’s Fourth Amended Complaint lists a number of causes for action, and demands a jury trial. 

In a previous Order written and executed by the Honorable Judge Corley, the court overturned a monetary award issued by jury verdict to Kyle Zoellner for $776,300, based on findings of malicious prosecution related to Zoellner’s arrest by former Arcata Police Officer Eric Losey, for the murder of David Josiah Lawson on the night of April 15, 2017. Because the financial award hinged on Zoellner’s arrest being determined unjustified, the judge was tasked with making determination of fact as to the probable cause leading to Zoellner’s arrest in the first place. 

ZOELLNER’S ATTORNEY FEES 

Asserting that because the city was negligent in its handing of the Lawson case investigation leading to the attempted prosecution of Zoellner for the crime of murder, (still the only acknowledged suspect in that case) Zoellner’s attorney argued that the city should be liable for his costs of hiring a law firm to litigate the matter.  As  to the total dollar amount that Zareh sought to have paid by the City of Arcata, there is some disbelief and speculation regarding the dollar amount listed in the pleadings. 

The Motion filed for sanctions reads in regard to attorney’s fees tallied by Zoellner, “Plaintiff incurred significant costs in deposing Ms. Fleming, engaged in meet and confer process, filing motions and letters with the court directly relating to the issues in discovery. Plaintiff incurred $40,125,000 in attorney’s fees and defense counsel should reimburse Plaintiff.” 

Curious about the dollar amount, the demand to overturn the finding regarding probable cause, and the additional documents and evidence requested by Zoellner’s counsel, we inquired via email after reviewing the December 2nd ruling.  

A cropped screenshot of Attorney Zareh’s email reply to our request for feedback, December 5th, 2022.

Although the request filed by Zareh, as well as the order produced which lists the various requested relief both reflect a dollar amount of $40,125,000. When asked via email if that number was a typo – inquiring if the intent was indeed to request “payment of $40,125,000 in attorney’s fee,” Attorney Zareh responded promptly, “If that is what it say, it is a typo.”  

In either scenario, the request for sanctions being denied means that Zoellner is still on the hook for the $40 thousand, or, the far greater $40 million dollars, if that initial request was accurately reflecting Ms. Zareh’s accumulated fees on behalf of Kyle Zoellner.   

Attorney Elizabeth Zareh asserted several causes of action in the original and further amended complaints, ranging from civil rights claims to defamation in litigating Zoellner’s malicious prosecution claims against the City of Arcata, and others in an effort to refute Zoellner’s arrest and attempted prosecution for the murder of Lawson.  

Page two of the Order by Judge Corely explains the rule pertaining to  justifiable sanction, and reflects the dollar amount of the attorney fees asked to be paid on behalf of Zoellner, which may actually reflect a typo carried over from Zareh’s filed request for sanctions. 

Among the things that Zoellner listed in the Motion for Sanctions as “untimely” included “a written fiber report by the Department of Justice… a 2020 email from non-party District Attorney Maggie Fleming to the Arcata Police Chief… April 2017 emails between Chief Tom Chapman and Ms. Fleming… 21 pages of police reports… 834 pages of other records.”  

DA’s EMAIL DISCOVERY

In an email exchange with Attorney Elizabeth Zareh following the initial jury award to Zoellner of $776,300 dollars in damages – which was shortly thereafter revoked by final Verdict of the Judge – Zareh claimed that the missing documents listed were valuable to Zoellner’s case, and asserted candidly that the records “would have shown culpability” on the part of the Defendants, the City of Arcata and District Attorney Maggie Fleming. Zoellner’s attorney wrote in response to our questions, referencing the documents and correspondence in question, asserting that the discovery process was amiss. 

Prior to filing the motion for discovery of those documents, in correspondence with Redheaded Blackbelt, Zareh suggested that DA Fleming was under scrutiny, writing to us, “These records were significant and would have shown culpability on their part with regards to other claims.”  Zareh described “a key email between Arcata Police Department and Maggie Fleming was concealed from Zoellner until the middle of the trial, and added, “The only reason we have that is federal court ordered Maggie Fleming to appear in person, [and] denied their request to keep her testimony sealed…”  

When reached for comment regarding the claims made by Zoellner’s attorney regarding the DA withholding evidence related to the Lawson case, Fleming explained, “The DA’s Office was not a party to the lawsuit. Mr. Zoellner’s attorney relied on a subpoena issued for a trial in June 2022, not for the trial date in October 2022, and wanted me to travel outside of the normal range of the subpoena to testify in person in San Francisco at a substantial expense.”  

Indicating that it was not her first choice to attend the hearing in person, Fleming told us, “I volunteered to provide testimony by Zoom, with the goal of avoiding travel expenses and substantial time away from the Office.  A federal judge decided that I should appear in person and ordered Mr. Zoellner’s attorney to pay my travel expenses because she was the party calling me to testify. That is standard practice when calling a non-party witness at trial who is required to travel a substantial distance for the appearance.” 

An attachment to the motion for sanctions reflects the amount invoiced to Kyle Zoellner’s attorney for  the DA’s appearance at trial, in San Francisco.

Specifically regarding the mysterious email in question, the Humboldt County District Attorney Maggie Fleming told us, “I provided truthful testimony in response to questioning by counsel for the parties. It is my understanding the trial court found Mr. Zoellner’s attorney did not timely request records from the District Attorney’s Office. My testimony included the voluntary disclosure of an email I found in my attempt to establish the sequence of events around the time Mr. Zoellner was charged over 5 years ago.”  

SANCTIONS REQUEST DENIED

In Zoellner’s filed request for sanctions, a section heading sets the stage for the zealous argument beyond,“…Pattern Of Discovery Misconduct, Control And Concealing Significant And Highly Relevant Records Central to Plaintiff’s case, Allowed Them To Shape A False Defense And Fraud Upon The Court,” thus framing the argument for sanctions.  The court, having heard at length each side argue their points reading the process of discovery and the merits of the original case investigation which led to this point, came rather quickly to a decision as to sanctions. 

The honorable Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley explained in the ruling filed December 2nd, “Plaintiff’s motion does not provide any argument as to how any Defendant violated Rule 26(a), that is, how the discovery upon which his motion is based may have been used by Defendants “to support their claims or defenses and thus should have been produced as part of their initial and supplemental disclosures.” 

The mother of Josiah Lawson, the murder victim from 2017, Charmaine Lawson expressed relief at the judge’s decision, and recalled the days that she attended the trial in person, overseeing the trial from the gallery. “Sitting in the courtroom for three days watching [Zoellner’s] attorney present a ridiculous claim against the City of Arcata.  She was all over the place, very disorganized.”  Lawson added, “Our family is absolutely thrilled that [Defendants] will not be sanctioned.” Lawson felt strongly that justice was served in San Francisco as to Zoellner’s litigation to date, saying candidly, “Murderers should not be rewarded after taking an innocent life…” 

Legal counsel from the City of Arcata informed that they are pleased with the judge’s Orders as to the Probable Cause as well as this order denying sanctions, which affirms the judge’s previous ruling on Probable cause as to the arrest of Zoellner in the first place.  In the instance of this most recent motion for sanctions, Judge Corley held a hearing on December 1st, and promptly returned the Order denying sanctions, reimbursement of payment to DA Fleming, and payment of Zoellner’s extensive attorney’s fees.  

The Face Page of Judge Corely’s Court Order denying Sanctions against the City of Arcata, filed December 2. 

Conveying that the progression of this matter – from the tragic death of Lawson in 2017 to the Civil lawsuit by Zoellner in response – has been “rare,” for lack of a better term, said Attorney John Robinson with law firm Castillo, Moriarty, Tran & Robinson. Representing the City of Arcata, Robinson acknowledged that the matter has presented some unusual legal circumstances. 

When asked about the Judge Corley’s decision regarding probable cause as to the arrest scrutinized by Attorney Zareh, Robinson indicated that their team saw the arrest of Zoellner in 2017 as “a pretty straight forward arrest.” All in all, the SF Judge’s read of the facts presented for the purposes of this trial are so far largely in line with the City of Arcata’s defense. 

Arcata Police Chief Brian Ahearn told us that due to the Lawson death investigation remaining open, they declined to offer comment as to Zoellner’s civil case, or the findings related to probable cause for his arrest, reiterating that because the investigation as to David Josiah Lawson’s death remains ongoing, they are not at liberty to comment. Chief Ahearn simply said, “[W]e are in need of witnesses to come forward,” adding, “That is our sole focus.” 

As the judge made clear, Zoellner’s attorney did not succeed in setting forth the reasoning for how this evidence – if it had been produced earlier – might have been used to Plaintiff’s advantage. The Judge’s ruling continues, “And, indeed, Plaintiff does not argue that Det. Losey ever sought to use on a motion, at trial or otherwise any of the documents about which he complains. As Plaintiff has not shown that any Defendant violated Rule 26(a) or 26(e), sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) are not warranted.” 

Judge Corley’s finding in October that the arrest of Zoellner for the death of David Josiah Lawson was justified by probable cause ended the trial as to the matter of Zoellner’s complaint of wrongful arrest, but that may not stop him from seeking an appeal, or as was attempted here, asking for sanctions while alleging a lapse of procedural responsibility on the part of the defendants.  

This article is written by Ryan Hutson, a local freelance journalist. Follow Ryan at Humboldt Freelance Reporting on Facebook, Insta and YouTube. To support Ryan’s award winning reporting, please consider donating here.