IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:20-civ-23235-Scola

LEZER CORP.

a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOBLE PARTNERS LLC,

a Maine limited liability company, d/b/a

NOBLE MEDICAL SUPPLY;

SEAN GRADY, an individual,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT OF DEFENDANTS’ ASSETS AND PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Plaintiff, LEZER CORP., a Delaware corporation (“Lezer”), by and through its 

undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 64 and 65, hereby moves for entry of a 

Prejudgment Writ of Attachment of the assets of Defendants, NOBLE PARTNERS LLC 

(“Noble”) and SEAN GRADY (“Grady”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), pursuant to 

Sections 76.04 and 77.031, Florida Statutes, and in support thereof states as follows:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. For a full recitation of the facts serving as the grounds for the issuance of an

order of a Prejudgment Writ of Attachment, the Court’s attention is respectfully directed to 

the facts stated in Lezer’s Complaint, which was originally filed with the Court on August 4, 

2020, and was amended on August 13, 2020 [ECF 8] (the “Amended Complaint”). In the 

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 1 of 11
- 2 -

interest of brevity, all the facts cited therein are not repeated herein, but rather are 

incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof. Nonetheless, the most relevant facts 

are summarized below:

2. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, around the beginning of May of 2020, 

Grady began negotiating on behalf of Noble with a principal of Lezer to supply Lezer with 

certain 70% Isopropyl Pharma-C-Wipes (the “Alcohol Wipes”).

3. Soon thereafter, on May 8, 2020, Noble and Lezer entered into an agreement

(the “Agreement”), whereby Noble would supply Lezer with 216,000 units of the Alcohol 

Wipes by May 18, 2020. In exchange, Lezer would pay Noble $432,000, with 25% 

($108,000) first due as a deposit (the “Deposit”), with the balance due upon delivery of all 

216,000 units of the Alcohol Wipes.

4. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Deposit would be returned if Noble did not 

materially fulfill the order as Noble had “promised.”

5. On May 11, 2020, Lezer wired the Deposit of $108,000 to Noble.

6. However, Noble thereafter delivered a total of only 14,400 units of Alcohol 

Wipes, or approximately 5% of what was “promised.”

7. When asked where the remaining 95% of the “promised” order was, Grady 

offered Lezer only stall tactics regarding shortly providing delivery.

8. When no delivery was made within the next two weeks, and no legitimate 

explanation offered as to why, Lezer understood that Noble had no intention of delivering the 

vast balance of Alcohol Wipes, and demanded the Deposit back.

9. However, Noble refused, and still offered only further stall tactics.

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 2 of 11
- 3 -

10. Lezer subsequently learned that, nearly a year earlier, on June 6, 2019, Grady 

was indicted in Cumberland County Superior Court in Maine on criminal charges of securities

fraud, theft by deception, and selling securities without a license. This had not been disclosed 

to Lezer at any point.

11. Indeed, Grady was clearly running Noble and its affiliated business entities as 

mere fronts and alter-egos to extend his criminal fraud enterprise and conceal his identity. 

Based on media reports, information, and belief, Grady has sought to defraud other panicked, 

supply-strapped healthcare companies out of millions of dollars by promising delivery of 

significant quantities of critically needed medical supplies with no intention whatsoever of 

ever following through on delivery. Lezer is likely only one of many other victims of Grady’s 

criminal machinations.

12. The Deposit of $108,000 is still wrongfully retained by Noble and/or Grady as 

of today.

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

13. This Court, pursuant to its equitable powers and Rule 64 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, is authorized to freeze the Defendants’ assets pending a permanent 

resolution of the case. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading, Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 986-

87 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Oncology Assocs., P.C., 198 F.3d 489, 496-97 (4th Cir. 

1999). “That money damages are claimed along with equitable relief does not defeat the 

district court's equitable powers.” Oncology Assocs., 198 F.3d at 499 (citing Levi Strauss and 

granting an asset freeze even though money damages were also sought). Furthermore, Rule 64 

provides that attachment is available “under the circumstances and in the manner provided by 

the law of the state in which the district court is held.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 64.

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 3 of 11
- 4 -

14. In addition, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Lezer seeks a preliminary injunction 

enjoining Defendants from transferring or otherwise divesting any assets traceable to the 

Deposit.

15. A prejudgment writ of attachment “serves as a lien upon property which may 

be the subject of execution upon a later-obtained judgment.” Cerna v. Swiss Bank Corp. 

(Overseas) S.A., 503 So.2d 1297, 1298 (Fla.3d DCA 1987) (citation omitted). Pursuant to 

Chapter 76, Florida Statutes, a creditor-plaintiff is entitled to a writ of attachment upon a debt 

actually due by a defendant, if the defendant will fraudulently part with the property before 

judgment can be obtained against him, resides out of state, is absconding, is secreting the 

property, or is fraudulently disposing of the property. See Fla. Stat. § 76.04(1), (4), (7), (9), 

and (10); see also Fla. Stat. § 726.108 (providing for attachment or other provisional remedy 

against an asset that is transferred fraudulently). A verified motion, or motion supported by 

affidavit, setting forth these allegations is sufficient to obtain a prejudgment writ of 

attachment under Section 76.04. See Rodriguez v. Banco Indus. De Venezuela, 576 So.2d 870 

(Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

16. It is well settled under Florida law that entry of a prejudgment writ of 

attachment is appropriate if a debtor-defendant is fraudulently disposing of property or 

otherwise secreting it to avoid payment of a debt due and owing. See Cerna, 503 So.2d at

1298. A writ of attachment is also available against assets fraudulently transferred from a 

debtor-defendant and held in the name of another individual or entity. See Rodriguez, 576

So.2d at 873; Cerna, 503 So.2d at 1298 (“prejudgment attachment is available against assets 

which are held in the name of another and which have either been fraudulently transferred 

from the debtor... or remain equitably owned by him.”)(citations omitted). Furthermore, even 

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 4 of 11
- 5 -

if assets are formally titled in the name of a third party, a writ of attachment is an appropriate 

remedy if those assets remain the actual assets of the debtor-defendant. See Rodriguez, 576 

So.2d at 873.

17. Florida courts have upheld the issuance of writs of garnishment to seize funds 

prior to judgment on facts similar to the present case. See, e.g., Marshall-Shaw v. Ford, 755 

So.2d 162, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (upholding trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s unjust 

enrichment claim properly formed the bases for the issuance of prejudgment writs of 

garnishment); Garel and Jacobs P.A. v. Wick, 683 So.2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (court 

held that prejudgment writs of garnishment could be issued in alleged quasi-contract claims); 

Barbouti v. Lysandrou, 559 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (court found that prejudgment

garnishment writ properly lies when there is a claim regarding the breach of an express and/or 

implied contract). 

18. Clearly in this case, a prejudgment writ of attachment is appropriate against 

Noble and Grady: Lezer has established an incontrovertible debt (the Deposit) that is due and

owing, and which neither Noble nor Grady can in good faith deny. Moreover, given the utter 

paucity of Noble’s delivery of a mere 5% the total Alcohol Wipes that was “promised”, the

utter lack of effort to explain why the remaining 95% was not timely delivered when 

“promised” and why the same still has not been delivered even to this day, Grady’s putative 

criminal history of defrauding those who give him money, and the contemporaneous reports 

that Lezer is only the latest victim of Grady’s putative criminally fraudulent enterprise to 

capitalize on others in Lezer’s dire position — all this is blatantly indicative of Noble’s and 

Grady’s nefarious intent behind this entire series of events. Indeed, every indication point to 

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 5 of 11
- 6 -

this entire series of events being the direct manifestation of Noble and Grady’s scheme simply 

to defraud Lezer of the Deposit.

19. Further, prejudgment attachment is warranted because Lezer seeks the 

equitable relief of a constructive trust in additional to a legal remedy. See Levi Strauss, 51 

F.3d at 987; See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 77-123 (sic). “A request for equitable relief invokes the 

district court’s inherent equitable powers to order preliminary relief, including an asset freeze, 

in order to assure the availability of permanent relief.” Id. When the plaintiff seeks, “among 

other things, the imposition of a constructive trust,” restrictive restraints upon the dissipation 

of property are appropriate. Castillo v. Vlaminch de Castillo, 701 So.2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 1997) (ruling that property was properly restrained pending a final determination of the 

action).

20. Moreover, “[t]he doctrine of constructive trusts is a recognized tool of equity 

designed in certain situations to right a wrong committed and to prevent unjust enrichment of 

one person at the expense of another either as a result of fraud, undue influence, abuse of 

confidence or mistake in the transaction.” In re Fin. Federated Title and Trust, Inc., 347 F.3d 

880, 891 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). “A constructive trust remains an equitable 

remedy ‘even though it might ultimately reach a fund of money.’ ” Oncology Assocs., 198 

F.3d at 498 (citation omitted). The Court thereby may impose a constructive trust on any 

fraudulently conveyed assets traceable to the Deposit. In re Fin. Federated, 347 F.3d at 891

(holding that “[t]raceable proceeds from prior fraudulent transfers . . . may also be subject to a 

constructive trust”) (citing In re Lapes, 254 B.R. 501, 508 (S.D.Fla.2000)). Defendants,

individually and through entities controlled by them, defrauded Lezer of its funds;

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 6 of 11
- 7 -

consequently, a prejudgment writ of attachment of the proceeds is equitable and appropriate 

to restrain any dissipation of the property.

21. Additionally, a prejudgment writ of attachment is proper because Lezer seeks

to hold the Defendants jointly and severally liable for conversion and the amounts claimed are 

ascertainable. Indeed, attachment is proper if the debt is liquidated and “ascertained or 

ascertainable by simple computation, or by reference to generally recognized standards.” 

Marshall-Shaw, 755 So.2d at 162 (accepting attorney’s testimony regarding the value of the 

stolen property). The Court in Marshall-Shaw granted prejudgment writs of attachment on the 

defendant’s “land, tenements, goods, and chattels.” Id. It is clear from the allegations made in 

the Amended Complaint that the still unreturned Deposit totals $108,000; therefore, the debt 

owed to Lezer is a liquidated claim, ascertainable by simple computation and, as such, 

prejudgment attachment is proper. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10.

22. Finally, a prejudgment writ of attachment should be granted because Lezer

seeks to freeze assets that are directly related to the underlying litigation. See Levi Strauss, 51 

F.3d at 987. Indeed, “when the plaintiff creditor asserts a cognizable claim to specific assets 

of the defendant or seeks a remedy involving those assets, a court may in the interim invoke 

equity to preserve the status quo pending a judgment where the legal remedy might prove 

inadequate and the preliminary relief furthers the court’s ability to grant the final relief 

requested.” Oncology Assocs., 198 F.3d at 496. Further, “[t]his nexus between the assets 

sought to be frozen through an interim order and the ultimate relief requested in the lawsuit is 

essential to the authority of a district court in equity to enter a preliminary injunction freezing 

assets.” Id. at 496-97. In Levi Strauss, the Eleventh Circuit recognized a District Court’s 

authority to freeze assets “which could have been used to satisfy an equitable award.” Levi 

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 7 of 11
- 8 -

Strauss & Co, 51 F.3d at 987; see also Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kimberlynn 

Creek Ranch, Inc., 276 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that orders on preliminary 

relief, including an asset freeze, may be directed “against a custodian of the defendant's 

assets.”). Here, Lezer seeks equitable remedies in addition to its legal claims. Further, Noble 

is one of the specific vehicles that the Defendants used to divert Lezer’s funds. Therefore, 

Lezer seeks to freeze all bank accounts in Defendants’ possession in order to protect a future 

money judgment, which can be accomplished only through the issuance of a prejudgment writ

of attachment of the same.

23. Indeed, there is presently a real and grave risk that Noble’s and Grady’s 

dishonesty will only continue, irrespective of the filing of the Amended Complaint and the 

forthrightness due to this Court. To wit, the risk is that, before any judgment can be obtained 

against them in this lawsuit, and in advance of their criminal activity, Defendants will attempt 

to fraudulently part with, abscond with, secrete, or otherwise fraudulently dispose of, any and 

all property traceable from the Deposit to shield those very same assets from collection. This 

would verily leave Lezer with nothing to collect from Noble and Grady, even when Lezer

prevails on its incontestable claims against them. Further, Grady resides out of state, at 86 

Rockland Ave, Portland, ME 04102 and/or 12 Well Stone, Portland, ME 04103, and Noble’s 

members are Grady and Daniel Mickool, none of whom resides in Florida.

24. Accordingly, Lezer is entitled to a prejudgment writ of attachment and 

preliminary injunction based upon the pattern of misleading and fraudulent behavior of Grady 

and the companies under his control, such as Noble. Given Grady’s criminal history of 

defrauding creditors, this Motion and its desired remedy are indeed critical to Lezer’s

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 8 of 11
- 9 -

recovery in order to prevent Defendants from siphoning off assets and causing irreparable 

harm to Lezer thereby.

RELIEF REQUESTED

25. Consequently, Lezer requests entry of a Prejudgment Writ of Attachment

pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 76.04 and 77.031 on each of Noble’s and Grady’s assets, and a 

preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 enjoining Defendants from transferring or 

otherwise divesting any assets traceable to the Deposit.

26. Lezer further requests that the Court order the United States Marshals Service 

to take into custody such assets.

27. Lezer also requests that the Court order all of Noble’s and Grady’s bank 

accounts be frozen, and that they surrender all checks, registries, and passbooks to the United 

States Marshals Service.

28. Lezer is aware of the procedural requirements contained in Fla. Stat. §§ 76.12 

and 77.031(3) requiring a bond equal to a sum twice the amount claimed in the application for 

attachment – Lezer thereby stands ready, willing, and able to post such a bond with surety to 

be approved by the Clerk. However, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c), Lezer should be made to 

post only a nominal bond as security for this writ of attachment. Indeed, the state law

procedural requirements contained in the Florida Statutes have no applicability to this Court.

Specifically, although Fed.R.Civ.P. 64(a) incorporates state substantive law as to the remedies 

available for a prejudgment seizure of property, it also states that “federal statute governs to 

the extent it applies.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 64(a). In addition, the Advisory Committee Notes to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 64 state that “[f]ormer Rule 64 stated that the Civil Rules govern an action in 

which any remedy available under Rule 64(a) is used. . . . These provisions are deleted as 

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 10 of 11
- 11 -

Dated: September 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

READ LAW PLLC

25 SE 2nd Avenue, Eighth Floor

Miami, Florida 33131

Phone: (305) 209-2131

asr@alexisreadlaw.com

By: /s/ Alexis S. Read

Alexis S. Read, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 98084

/s/ Noah Siegel

Noah Siegel

Il. Bar No. 6327603

GUTNICKI LLP

Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending

4711 Golf Road, Suite 200

Skokie, Illinois 60076

Telephone: (847) 745-6594

akaye@gutnicki.com

nsiegel@gutnicki.com

Attorneys for Lezer Corp.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 3, 2020, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was served via e-mail to those parties required to receive e-mail service pursuant to 

Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516, and/or by U.S. Mail to all parties on the CM/ECF Service List:

Sean Grady

86 Rockland Ave

Portland, ME 04102

Noble Partners LLC 

d/b/a Noble Medical Supply

Attn: Sean Grady, President

1148 Forest Ave

Portland, ME 04101

By: /s/ Alexis S. Read

Alexis S. Read, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 98084

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 11 of 11