UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DINA PARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.:____________________

AMTEC LESS LETHAL 

SYSTEMS, INC, 

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW Plaintiff, DINA PARTIN, by and through the undersigned 

attorneys of record, and files this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against 

Defendants, AMTEC LESS LETHAL SYSTEMS, INC., and alleges:

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1332 (diversity jurisdiction) as it is between citizens of different states and the 

amount in controversy is greater than $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and 

attorneys’ fees. 

2. Plaintiff, DINA PARTIN (herein after “Ms. Partin”), is a citizen of the 

State of Florida.

3. Defendant, AMTEC LESS LETHAL SYSTEMS, INC. (herein after 

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 9
2

“AMTEC” or “Defendant”), is a corporation incorporated under the laws of 

Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Virginia.

4. Venue is proper in this Court because the events forming the basis for 

this cause of action occurred in Taylor County, Florida.

Factual Allegations

5. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in March 2017 as a Production 

Manager at their manufacturing plant located in Perry, Florida. Plaintiff was a 

hard-working and productive employee for the company who routinely received 

praise for her work and high-performance reviews.

6. Defendant is an ammunition manufacturer who manufactures items 

for law enforcement agencies and militaries, including rubber bullets, bean bag 

munitions, smoke grenades, stun grenades, door breaching grenades, and similar 

products. Defendant is subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), related to providing 

safe and healthy workplaces for employees. 

7. In or around 2013 another Production Manager of Defendant, John 

Hunt, attended a safety demonstration of a blast booth specifically designed for

Defendant in their workplace. Employees handling explosive substances work 

inside the blast booths, which are designed to protect individuals in close proximity 

to the employee handling the explosive substances inside the blast booth.

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 9
3

8. As part of this safety demonstration, varying quantities of explosive 

substances were placed inside the blast booth used by Defendant to demonstrate 

the limitations of the blast booth and its ability to protect individuals working in 

close proximity to the blast booth. During this demonstration, 50g of a specific 

explosive flash powder used by Defendant in the manufacturing of certain products 

(“flash powder”) was placed inside the blast booth and set off, resulting in no 

damage to the blast booth or external damage occurring outside of the booth. A 

greater amount of flash powder was then placed inside the booth and set off, 

resulting in the Lexan safety shielding detaching from the steel frame of the booth

and exposing the surrounding area to the explosion.

9. The results of this demonstration are memorialized in a memorandum 

in the possession of Defendant, submitted by the engineer who designed and tested 

the blast booths used by Defendant. In this memorandum, Defendant was warned 

of the amount of flash powder that could safely be inside a blast booth at any given 

time.

10. At all relevant times, Defendant was aware of the amount of flash 

powder that could be safely within a blast booth in order to contain an explosion 

and protect individuals working in close proximity to the blast booth. Defendant 

was aware of these limitations through OSHA, the memorandum discussing in 

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 9
4

detail the limitations of the blast booths, and from generally accepted industry 

standards.

11. On September 10, 2018, Defendant issued Working Instructions 

instructing employees handling and producing explosive products in the blast 

booths that they could safely bring 550g of flash powder into the booths; over ten 

times the safe limit of flash powder to bring inside the booths.

12. Other Working Instructions, going back to at least 2017, advised 

employees that they could safely bring 2000g of flash powder into the blast booths. 

These instructions were given to expedite the manufacturing process in order to 

meet production goals and fulfill work orders. Working Instructions permitting 

more than the safe limit of flash powder to bring inside the blast booths remained 

in place despite prior warnings to Defendant that the amount was well in excess of 

the safe limits for the booths.

13. On September 14, 2018, four days after the Working Instructions 

permitting 550g of flash powder inside the blast booths were issued, an explosion 

occurred at Defendant’s plant caused by flash powder which was contained inside 

a blast booth. Due to the Working Instructions issued by Defendant instructing

their employees to handle an amount of flash powder more than ten times greater 

than the known safety limits for the blast booths, this explosion was not contained 

by the blast booth and instead extended out into the building and surrounding area. 

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 4 of 9
5

14. The September 14, 2018 explosion occurred in the building where 

Plaintiff worked and resulted in the deaths of two of her co-workers and close 

personal friends. Upon the explosion occurring, Plaintiff, who was directly outside 

the building, rushed into the building, inhaling smoke and fighting through debris, 

before arriving at the body of one of her close friends and co-worker. Plaintiff, 

along with a Quality Engineer for Defendant at the time, Vernon Wakefield, 

dragged her friend out of the damaged building and attempted to limit his bleeding

until first responders arrived. Plaintiff remained with her two dying friends until 

first responders arrived.

15. Shortly after the catastrophic events that occurred on September 14, 

2018, Plaintiff began suffering from severe emotional distress and trauma resulting 

in, amongst other physical issues, headaches, panic attacks, a loss of appetite, and 

an inability to sleep. Plaintiff was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, 

depression, and anxiety. Plaintiff is presently receiving treatment for her

psychological trauma and the accompanying physical symptoms and will be for the 

foreseeable future.

16. In addition to the negligent and/or intentional and reckless actions 

described above, and during the same relevant times for purposes of this action, 

Defendant also engaged in the following negligent and/or intentional and reckless 

actions:

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 5 of 9
6

a. Failed to maintain design basis or engineering specifications for 

the panels installed on the blast booths;

b. Failed to document or maintain a written description and 

engineer design information for the blast booth workstation’s 

dust collection and ventilation system;

c. Failed to ensure that the Process Hazard Analysis methodology 

addressed the requirements under 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3);

d. Failed to train employees before being involved in an operating 

process which exposed them to explosive hazards;

e. Failed to conduct or document any Process Safety Management 

compliance audits in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1); 

and

f. Exposed employees to hazards as a result of the blast booth not 

being capable of withstanding blast overpressure.

COUNT I: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

17. Plaintiff realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-16 above and 

incorporates them herein by reference.

18. At all relevant times, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to act with 

reasonable care, and/or the injury to the Plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable.

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 6 of 9
7

19. At all relevant times, Defendant had the power, ability, authority and 

duty to stop engaging in the conduct described herein and to intervene to prevent 

or prohibit such conduct.

20. At all relevant times, Defendant knew, or reasonably should have 

known, that the conduct described herein would and did proximately result in 

Plaintiffs’ physical symptoms and emotional distress.

21. Despite said knowledge, power, and duty, Defendant negligently 

failed to stop engaging in the conduct described herein or to prevent or to prohibit 

such conduct or otherwise to protect Plaintiff, thereby breaching their duty to her.

22. As a result of Defendant’s actions and inactions, Plaintiff observed 

and witnessed the death of two co-workers and friends with whom she shared a 

close personal relationship as described herein. Moreover, outside forces and 

substances touched Plaintiff and/or entered her body during the event that resulted 

in the death of her two co-workers and friends.

23. As a direct and legal result of Defendant’s actions and inactions, 

Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer significant physical symptoms, 

pain and suffering, and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress.

24. Defendant’s conduct constitutes the negligent infliction of emotional 

distress and is actionable under the laws of the State of Florida. Plaintiff is entitled 

to compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial.

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 7 of 9
8

COUNT II: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

25. Plaintiff realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-24 above and 

incorporates them herein by reference.

26. Defendant’s conduct described herein was outrageous, willful, 

reckless, and/or intentional.

27. Defendant intended to cause Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress and 

the accompanying physical symptoms.

28. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and the outrageous, 

reckless, willful, and/or intentional conduct of Defendant was the cause of the 

emotional distress and the accompanying physical symptoms suffered by Plaintiff.

29. Defendant’s outrageous, reckless, and/or intentional conduct 

constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress and is actionable under the 

laws of the State of Florida. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive 

damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues herein that are 

so triable and demands judgment against Defendant for the following:

(a) that process be issued, and this Court take jurisdiction over this case;

(b) that this Court grant equitable relief against Defendant under the

applicable counts set forth above, and any other equitable relief

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 8 of 9
9

available to Plaintiff;

(c) enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff awarding all

legally-available general, compensatory damages, punitive damages and 

economic loss to Plaintiff from Defendant’s violations of law and conduct

enumerated herein;

(d) enter judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and 

costs;

(e) award Plaintiff interest where appropriate; and

(f) grant such other further relief as being just and proper under the

circumstances.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of February 2020.

/s/ Matthew D. MacNamara

Matthew D. MacNamara (FL Bar No. 113002)

matt@scottandwallacelaw.com

Robert M. Scott (FL Bar No. 57149)

rscott@scottandwallacelaw.com

J. Clint Wallace (FL Bar No. 59590)

cwallace@scottandwallacelaw.com

SCOTT & WALLACE LLP

209 E. Brevard St.

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Telephone: (850) 222-7777

Facsimile: (850) 222-7778

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:20-cv-00065-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 9 of 9