UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: 9:20-cv-80954-DMM

SL MONROE, SR., and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, 

LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, PALM 

BEACH RECOVERY, LLC, and DOMINIC 

SIRIANNI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DOMINIC 

SIRIANNI’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Plaintiff, SL MONROE, SR. (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, and 

pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 56.1, Southern District of 

Florida, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to Defendant, DOMINIC SIRIANNI’s 

(“Sirianni” or “Defendant”), Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and requests, based on the 

foregoing response, that Defendant’s Motion be denied with prejudice.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, 

LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute (“Delphi”), PALM BEACH RECOVERY, LLC (“Palm 

Beach”), and DOMINIC SIRIANNI (collectively “Defendants”) as a Behavioral Health 

Technician (“BHT”) from approximately July 20, 2018 through April 1, 2020. During all 

relevant times, Delphi owned Palm Beach and Sirianni was the Chief Executive Officer and 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

employee of Delphi and Palm Beach. SIRIANNI ROGG RESPONSES #2-3 and ECF No. 41. 

On October 23, 2020, Michael Borkowski, Delphi’s Corporate Representative, testified at his 

deposition that during Monroe’s employment Sirianni owned stock in Delphi and Palm Beach. 

Plaintiff worked on average approximately 50 hours per week while employed by Defendants, 

and was paid on average approximately $15.25 per hour. However, Defendants did not pay 

Plaintiff for all hours Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week. On or about April 1, 2020, 

Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated because he complained to Defendants about unpaid wages.

Plaintiff thereafter brought a three-count complaint against Defendants on June 17, 2020, 

alleging: (1) unpaid overtime wages against the Corporate Defendants in violation of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); (2) unpaid overtime wages against the Individual Defendant in 

violation of the FLSA; and (3) retaliatory discharge against the Corporate Defendants in 

violation of the FLSA.

Sirianni filed the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, along with the Statement of 

Undisputed Material Facts in Support of his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, alleging that 

Sirianni is not an employer under the FLSA because “Sirianni was not involved in the day-to-day 

operation of Plaintiff’s employer, Palm Beach Recovery, LLC (“Palm Beach”), and did not have 

direct responsibility for the supervision of Plaintiff.” However, Sirianni’s Motion is based on 

misleading, inaccurate, and disputed material facts, and is not entirely supported by proper 

summary judgment evidence. Thus, there still remain genuine issues of material fact. 

Accordingly, because Sirianni’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment lacks merit, the Court 

should deny the Motion.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is authorized only when the moving party meets its burden of 

demonstrating that “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, 

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When 

determining whether the moving party has met this burden, the Court must view the evidence 

and all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Adickes v. S.H. 

Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). 

If the record presents genuine factual issues, the court must not decide them; it must deny 

the motion and proceed to trial. Doe v. City of Miami Gardens, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1118, 1127 (S.D. 

Fla. 2019). If reasonable minds might differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts then 

the court should deny summary judgment. Id. The dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” See 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Moreover, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment need not respond to it 

with evidence unless and until the movant has properly supported the motion with sufficient 

evidence. Adickes, 398 U.S. at 160. The moving party must demonstrate that the facts underlying 

all the relevant legal questions raised by the pleadings or are not otherwise in dispute, or else 

summary judgment will be denied notwithstanding that the non-moving party has introduced no 

evidence whatsoever. Brunswick Corp. v. Vineberg, 370 F.2d 605, 611-12 (5th Cir. 1967). The 

Court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving 

party. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

B. Sirianni is an employer as defined by the FLSA.

Pursuant to the FLSA, the term “employer” includes “any person acting directly or 

indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. 29 USCS § 203(d). 

Employers under the FLSA may include corporate officers. Patel v. Wargo, 803 F.2d 632, 637-

38 (11th Cir. 1986). The Eleventh Circuit has held that “a corporate officer with operational 

control of a corporation’s covered enterprise is an employer along with the corporation, jointly 

and severally liable under the FLSA for unpaid wages.” Id. 

A corporate officer thus qualifies as an “employer” under the FLSA when he is either 

“involved in the day-to-day operation or ha[s] some direct responsibility for the supervision of 

the employee,” and courts examine whether the officer was involved in the compensation of 

employees, the hiring or firing of employees, or other matters in relation to an employee. Alvarez 

Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150, 1160 (11th Cir. 2008). However, 

“[w]hether an individual falls within this definition does not depend on technical or isolated 

factors but rather on the circumstances of the whole activity.” Id. 

1. Sirianni was an employer because he had operational control as CEO of Palm 

Beach.

The term “operational control” has been interpreted to include supervision over 

significant aspects of an entity’s day-to-day functions, including employment matters. Patel, 803 

F.2d at 638. The Eleventh Circuit has noted that “while control need not be continuous, it must 

be both substantial and related to the company’s FLSA obligations.” Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane 

Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299, 1314 (11th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, according to MirriamWebster, the role of a CEO is defined as “the executive with the chief decision-making authority 

in an organization or business.” CEO, Merriam-Webster.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

In its Motion, Defendant claims that “[i]t is undisputed that Sirianni does not operate 

Palm Beach nor does he provide any general oversight to Palm Beach.” See ECF No. 42.

However, Sirianni is listed as the CEO of Palm Beach. See ECF No. 41 at ¶ 1. As CEO, 

Sirianni’s duties “include guiding the company’s growth and strategy.” See ECF No. 45 at ¶ 5.

Furthermore, Sirianni “is responsible for overseeing the financial viability of Delphi and making 

high-level strategic decisions.” See ECF No. 41 at ¶ 7. Although Sirianni denies any involvement 

in having operational control of Palm Beach, it is undeniable that, as the CEO of DELPHI 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, LLC and PALM BEACH RECOVERY, LLC, Sirianni was 

at the head of the high-level decision-making and had control of his companies’ growth and 

strategy.

Furthermore, the Policy and Procedure Orientation Acknowledgement Form signed by 

Plaintiff was provided by Delphi, Employee Action Forms were sent to Delphi, and Delphi 

informed Plaintiff of his termination. See ECF No. 45 at ¶¶ 24-26. In other words, all policies 

and procedures (including policies and procedures relating to employees’ hiring, termination,

and payroll), and hiring, firing, and training of employees was enforced and administered from 

the Delphi office Sirianni worked out of located in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Under the analysis of Lamonica, Sirianni’s control over Palm Beach need not be 

continuous, and as such, Sirianni need not be involved frequently with Palm Beach’s operations,

as long as he had supervision of significant aspects of the company’s FLSA obligations and or 

matters related to Plaintiff’s employment. If Sirianni truthfully did not have any involvement or 

operational control of Defendants, then he is running the risk of being completely negligent in 

his oversight as a CEO. It is the essential function of the CEO to oversee all matters involving 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

one’s business. Accordingly, whether or not Sirianni had operational control is an issue disputed 

between the parties. As such, Sirianni’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be denied.

2. Sirianni was involved with matters related to Plaintiff’s employment.

Even if the Court were to find that Sirianni did not meet the standard set out for 

“operational control,” the facts point to Sirianni’s involvement with matters related to Plaintiff’s 

employment. Sirianni claims that he had no involvement in the oversight of Palm Beach 

employees and points to the fact that he worked at the Fort Lauderdale office and not Palm 

Beach. See ECF No. 41 at ¶¶ 4-5. However, during the early stages of Plaintiff’s employment 

with the Defendants, Plaintiff was sent to orientation at the Delphi office located in Fort 

Lauderdale to partake in his initial training. See ECF No. 45 at ¶ 20. It is at this orientational 

juncture of the Plaintiff’s employment where Delphi introduced Plaintiff to his role with the 

company, and explained the company’s vision, goals and objectives, policies, procedures and 

benefits . See Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. This training lasted for several hours each day, and occurred in the 

Ft. Lauderdale office where Sirianni completed his duties in guiding Defendants’ growth and 

strategy. See Id. at ¶ 21. The fact that this training program, and likely others, occurred at 

Sirianni’s office in Fort Lauderdale, shows that Sirianni was involved with matters related to 

Plaintiff’s employment. 

Accordingly, despite asserting otherwise, the undisputed record shows Sirianni was 

involved with matters related to Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Sirianni’s Motion should be 

denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Sirianni’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be 

denied in its entirety, and the Court should award Plaintiff any remedy the Court deems 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

necessary and just, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with having to defend this 

Motion.

Dated: November 23, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

Aron Smukler

Aron Smukler, Esq. (FBN: 297779)

E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com

Tanesha W. Blye

Tanesha W. Blye, Esq. (FBN: 738158)

E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 7 of 7