The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
:
JON GARFIELD, : CASE NO. 1:23-cv-02458
:
Plaintiff, : ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. 7]
v. :
:
RAYMOND SCOTT REPINSKI, :
:
Defendant. :
:
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
In this case, Plaintiff Jon Garfield sues Raymond Repinski for fraud, conversion, and
other claims. Complaint exhibits suggest that Plaintiff Garfield set up a scheme to have his
businesses pay large amounts of “CFO fees” and “Board of Director Fees” into two newly
formed Tennessee limited liability companies (LLCs).1 Garfield’s company, Blue Water
Vaccines, Inc., would then list the payments as “Contractor Payments.”2
Defendant Repinski told Plaintiff Garfield that payments to these newly formed
Tennessee LLCs would allow Garfield to avoid $230,131 in state and federal taxes on
$500,000 distributed from the Garfield businesses.3
Plaintiff Garfield agreed to the scheme even though he knew almost nothing about
Repinski. With Garfield’s approval, Repinski incorporated two Delaware LLCs with
Knoxville, Tennessee addresses and obtained Federal tax IDs. The Delaware registrations
listed Defendant Raymond Rapinski as the sole owner.4
1 Doc. 1-8, PageID #: 52; Doc. 1-9, PageID #: 53.
2 Doc. 1, ¶¶ 21-25.
3 Doc. 1-3, PageID #: 28. Doc. 1, ¶ 14.
Despite hardly knowing Repinski, Plaintiff Garfield also allowed Repinski to open
two Knoxville Bank of America bank accounts for the LLCs. In discussing the bank accounts,
Repinski asked Garfield: “Do you have anyone else other than me who can be the authorized
signer on the bank accounts? (It must be someone who you trust with your life.)”5 Plaintiff
Garfield apparently gave Repinski the authority to be the bank accounts’ initial signer with
Garfield as the backup.6
With this lawsuit, Plaintiff Garfield says Repinski has converted monies that Garfield
or Garfield’s employer gave the LLCs.7 Plaintiff lives in California.8 With his complaint and
its attached exhibits, Plaintiff makes claims for acts the Defendant made from St. Petersburg,
Florida or Knoxville, Tennessee locations.9
However, Plaintiff has not served Defendant with the summons and complaint and
Plaintiff does not know where Defendant lives other than the general averment that: the
Defendant has made statements that Defendant lives in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.10 So,
personal jurisdiction over Repinski remains unclear.
On January 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff Jon Garfield’s motion for
prejudgment attachment of the two LLC’s Bank of America accounts under the names Osseo
L.L.C., and Artas L.L.C.11
In approving a prejudgment attachment, the Court ordered that the prejudgment
attachment order not be effective until Garfield posts a $1,281,437.30 bond with the Clerk
5 Doc. 1-6 PageID # 37.
6 Doc. 1, ¶ 27.
7 Doc. 5-1, ¶¶ 7-9.
8 Doc. 1, ¶ 1.
9 , Doc. 1-1, PageID #: 19; Doc. 1-2, PageID #: 20; Doc. 1-6, PageID #: 37; Doc. 1-7, PageID #: 40.
10 Doc. 1, ¶ 2.
of the Court.12 Under Ohio law, a bond for prejudgment attachment must be twice the value
of the attached property.13
Plaintiff Garfield now moves the Court to waive this bond requirement for the
prejudgment attachment.14 Garfield says that he has been unable to obtain the bond, and,
while he is not indigent, the bond is “economically impossible” for Garfield.15
As described above, Plaintiff Garfield attaches exhibits that suggest Garfield and
Repinski set up a scheme where Garfield-associated businesses would pay the newly formed
LLCs and Garfield’s business would list the payments as payments to an unrelated contractor
rather than a payment to Garfield.16 The scheme would give Garfield access to the funds
without paying any income tax on the funds he received from his associated businesses.17
The Court approved attachment but conditioned the attachment upon Plaintiff posting
the typical Ohio attachment bond. With its new motion, Plaintiff seeks to attach the bank
accounts without posting any bond.
The Court lacks authority to issue a prejudgment attachment without the Plaintiff
posting the statutorily required bond amount.18 The Ohio statute governing prejudgment
attachment allows courts to waive the bond requirement only “[i]f the plaintiff is indigent”
and “as fairness requires.”19
12 Doc. 6 (ex parte), PageID #: 108.
13 R.C. § 2715.044.
14 Doc. 7.
15 , PageID #: 111.
16 Doc. 1-2, PageID #: 22-23; Doc. 1-3, PageID #: 28; Doc. 1-4, PageID #: 33; Doc. 1-6, PageID #: 37; Doc. 1-8,
PageID #: 52-53.
17 Doc. 1, ¶10; Doc. 1-2, PageID #: 22.
18 , No. 76843, 2000 WL 336513, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2000) (“[T]he
requirement that the plaintiff post a bond is an essential component of the mandatory judicial supervision of the attachment
procedure which is necessary in order to provide the defendant with due process of law.”).
19 R.C. § 2715.044. The bond requirement is waived if the defendant is a foreign corporation or does not reside in Ohio.
Plaintiff Garfield has not shown that he is indigent (and indeed, he admits that he is
not).20
So, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Garfield’s motion to waive the prejudgment attachment
bond, with leave to file a motion for temporary injunctive relief, should the Plaintiff so
choose.
The Court further REMINDS Plaintiff of his Rule 4(m) duty to timely serve the
complaint. Due to lack of service, the Court’s jurisdiction over the matter remains an open
issue, especially since the bank accounts were opened in Tennessee.21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2024
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20 Doc. 7, PageID #: 112.