Suit against former Tiffin judge in appeals court

CINCINNATI — A lawsuit against former Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court Judge Mark Repp is in appeals court after a December 2022 decision. The case in question, Alexzandria Orta v. Mark Repp, was in the Northern District of Ohio, Toledo, when Sr. U.S. District Judge James G. Garr dismissed the case. In the dismissal, Garr wrote that the defendant (Repp) argued that he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. He further explains that Repp argued because of the judicial immunity he was acting in his judicial capacity when he issued the orders against the woman and so, the case should be dismissed. Orta's arguments and wants Orta's representation appealed the case, which is currently in the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In February 2023, the case was in mediation, however, by mid-March, the mediation office was no longer involved with the appeal. In April, Orta's legal representation filed an appellant brief. In the corrected brief, lawyers contend that judicial immunity (the reason the original suit was dropped) does not apply to Repp in this case. Orta's lawyers said in the brief "if an Ohio municipal court judge, acting on a selfish motive, jails a spectator for 10 days until she consents to a drug test when (a) the judge lacked a basis for testing and (b) no written contempt charge was filed," immunity should not apply to Repp. Further, Orta's counsel contends that Repp had no jurisdiction to jail Orta for acts of contempt in court because no written charge was pending against her. The brief also states that when Repp jailed Orta, he acted in "complete absence of jurisdiction" because there was no written contempt charge. Orta's representation states Repp's misconduct was not part of a judicial act that would fall under immunity purposes and the original decision should be reversed because judicial immunity only extends to judicial acts. Lastly, they contend that Ohio does not give absolute judicial immunity and permits liability for acts that are deemed to be outside the scope of employment or official responsibilities or were done with a malicious purpose, in bad faith, in a reckless manner or fail to apply to the exception of claims for Constitutional violations. Repp's arguments and wants Repp's counsel filed an appellee brief for his side of the case. His legal representation contends Repp has absolute immunity against Orta's claims because judges have broad immunity from being sued and this immunity extends to any claim brought against a judge in their judicial capacity. His counsel agrees with Orta's counsel that judges do not have absolute immunity when it comes to acting in complete absence of all jurisdictions or in a non-judicial capacity; however, they say that Repp did not act in those ways and is therefore immune to the claim. His representation further said that even if Repp was not qualified to be under absolute immunity, he is entitled to qualified immunity. According to his counsel, Repp would be entitled to qualified immunity because government officials may only be held liable for damages if their actions violated a constitutional or statutory right and were established violations of those rights. Current status The last item filed in the appeals case was a reply brief in May, Orta's team's response to Repp's claims. In the response, Orta's representation continues to contend Repp lacked jurisdiction to impose a sanction on her and therefore did not have judicial immunity. The case remains open. The March 2022 lawsuit against Repp came two years after Orta was attending a court hearing and was ordered by Repp to take a drug test, which she refused. She then was taken into custody at the Seneca County Sheriff's Office. Repp was suspended in November 2021 by the Ohio Supreme Court for his conduct, for one year.