1 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 

MICHAEL MOTTA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAFETY FIRST LABS LLC, 

A Florida Limited Liability Company, and 

ROBERT STILLMAN, individually, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, MICHAEL MOTTA (“Plaintiff”), hereby sues Defendants SAFETY 

FIRST LABS LLC (“SFL”) and ROBERT STILLMAN (“Stillman”) (collectively, 

“Defendants”), and alleges as follows: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This is an action by Plaintiff for damages and attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

2. Plaintiff is an individual over the age of eighteen (18) and is 

otherwise sui juris. 

3. Defendant SFL is a Florida limited liability company with a principal 

place of business in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

4. Defendant SFL is a manufacturer and supplier of chemical 

solutions.

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 1 of 16
2 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

5. During the relevant period, Defendant Robert Stillman served as 

Chief Executive Officer for SFL.

6. During the relevant period, Plaintiff was controlled by Defendants. 

7. During the relevant period, Defendants set Plaintiff’s schedule. 

8. During the relevant period, Plaintiff reported to SFL management, 

including Stillman. 

9. Defendants provided tools, materials, and supplies to be used by 

Plaintiff when performing work for Defendants. 

10. Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants in Palm Beach 

County, Florida. 

11. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants conduct business 

in Palm Beach County, employed Plaintiff in Palm Beach County, and the claims 

arose within Palm Beach County. In addition, the parties’ express contract 

contains a mandatory forum selection clause requiring litigation in Palm Beach 

County. 

12. All conditions precedent for the filing of this action before this Court 

have been previously met. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

13. At all times material hereto, Defendants were, and continue to be, 

“employers” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d). 

14. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an “employee” within the 

meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 2 of 16
3 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

15. At all times material hereto, Defendants were “employers” within the 

meaning of the FLSA. 

16. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ annual gross income 

significantly exceeds the $500,000 annual income threshold set for enterprise 

coverage under the FLSA. 

17. At all relevant times, Defendants employed two or more employees 

that customarily, continually, and regularly handled goods and materials that 

i) were purchased from a person or entity outside the state of Florida and/or 

ii) were purchased in Florida but had previously traveled through interstate 

commerce. 

18. Upon information and belief, Defendants obtained and solicited 

funds from non-Florida sources, accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used 

telephonic transmissions going over state lines to do business, transmitted funds 

outside of the State of Florida and used electronic means to market and run their 

business internationally (i.e., sales). 

19. Defendants, at all material and relevant times, were engaged in 

interstate commerce and subject to enterprise coverage under the FLSA. 

BACKGROUND 

20. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from May 3, 2021, until his 

unlawful, retaliatory termination on September 29, 2021. 

21. Plaintiff is a sales professional with more than 30 years of experience 

in the chemical industry. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 3 of 16
4 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

22. In or around December 2020, Stillman first started discussions 

regarding Plaintiff’s prospective employment.

23. Plaintiff was informed that Stillman set aside well over one-million 

dollars from the 2020 revenue to ensure Plaintiff’s salary, and other employees, 

would be covered. This began what would be a string of deceptive conduct by 

Defendants.

24. Defendants hired Plaintiff on or around May 3, 2021. 

25. Plaintiff was given a misleading and inflated job title. 

26. In reality, Plaintiff’s job duties were that of a salesperson.

27. Plaintiff customarily and regularly worked over 40 hours a week for 

Defendants. 

28. Defendants, however, never paid Plaintiff at time-and-a-half his 

regular rate of pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

29. To make matters worse, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at 

or above the state and federal minimum wage for several weeks (i.e., August 18, 

2021, through August 31, 2021; September 1, 2021, through September 14, 

2021; September 15, 2021, through September 28, 2021) in violation of the 

FLSA. 

30. Defendants made unilateral deductions to Plaintiff’s supposed base 

salary. 

31. Defendants cited to a loss of revenue for the salary deductions—an 

irrelevant factor under the FLSA. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 4 of 16
5 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

32. From September 1, 2021, through September 28, 2021, two (2) full 

pay periods, Defendants failed to issue any compensation to Plaintiff. 

33. During this time, Plaintiff complained about and objected to 

Defendants’ illegal pay policies. 

34. Plaintiff was retaliatorily terminated by Defendants on September 

29, 2021. 

35. Any reasons proffered by Defendants to justify Plaintiff’s unlawful 

termination is nothing more than mere pretext. 

36. On or about October 1, 2021, Counsel for Plaintiff sent a demand 

letter to Stillman regarding Defendants’ unlawful termination of Plaintiff, 

egregious pay policies and practices, and unpaid compensation due and owing 

to Plaintiff. 

37. Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed their retaliatory, frivolous 

lawsuit against Plaintiff.1 Plaintiff expressly denies the baseless allegations in 

Defendants’ lawsuit. 

38. Thereafter, Plaintiff also started receiving threatening and harassing 

text messages. 

39. Upon information and belief, these retaliatory text messages were 

sent to Plaintiff by Stillman, and/or someone commissioned to do so by Stillman 

with intent to coerce and/or intimidate Plaintiff into dropping his legal claims 

against Defendants. 

1 Safety First Labs, LLC v. Mike Motta et al., Case No. 9:21-cv-81931-RS.

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 5 of 16
6 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

40. Defendants took post-employment retaliatory action in the form of 

their frivolous lawsuit directed to Plaintiff and fearmongering through 

threatening text messages sent to Plaintiff only after receipt of Plaintiff’s demand 

letter dated October 1, 2021, and related communication from Plaintiff’s counsel 

regarding Plaintiff’s various claims. 

Count I 

UNPAID OVERTIME VIOLATION AGAINST SFL UNDER THE FLSA 

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein. 

42. Upon information and belief, the annual volume of sales or business 

for SFL exceeded $500,000 during each calendar year of the relevant period. 

43. As part of its business, SFL sold goods and materials that traveled 

through interstate commerce during the relevant period. 

44. During the relevant period, SFL obtained and solicited funds from 

non-Florida sources (i.e., sales), accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used 

telephonic and electronic means to market and conduct business outside of the 

State of Florida, used telephonic and electronic transmissions going over state 

lines to do its business, transmitted funds outside the State of Florida, and 

otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce. 

45. During the relevant period, SFL, upon information and belief, 

accepted credit card payments, wire transfers, and other forms of payments that 

were made or processed in connection with sales made inside and outside the 

state of Florida. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 6 of 16
7 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

46. SFL engaged in interstate commerce and was subject to the FLSA 

during all relevant periods. 

47. During Plaintiff’s employment with SFL, Plaintiff worked over forty 

(40) hours per week on numerous occasions. 

48. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s actual job duties, Plaintiff was a nonexempt employee. 

49. SFL employed Plaintiff as a glorified salesperson. 

50. Despite customarily and regularly working overtime hours, and with 

knowledge of these overtime hours, SFL never compensated Plaintiff at the rate 

of time-and-a-half for all overtime hours worked.

51. SFL intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages he is owed 

under the FLSA.

52. SFL is in violation of the FLSA and owes Plaintiff backpay.

53. In addition, SFL is liable for double the overtime amounts owed as 

liquidated damages under the FLSA as a result of its intentional and willful 

violations for up to the three-year statute of limitations afforded by the FLSA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 

a. Enter judgment against Defendant SFL under the FLSA; 

b. Award Plaintiff actual damages for the unpaid overtime wages; 

c. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

d. Award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs; 

e. Award Plaintiff all recoverable interest; and 

f. Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 7 of 16
8 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

Count II 

MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION AGAINST SFL UNDER THE FLSA 

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein. 

55. SFL was Plaintiff’s direct employer as that term “employer” is defined 

by the FLSA. 

56. According to Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, 

the terms “Employer”, “Employee”, and “Wage” have the meanings established 

under the FLSA and implementing regulations. 

57. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff worked numerous hours 

that were compensated well below the federal and Florida statutory minimum 

wage rates. 

58. For example, Plaintiff received only 46% of his regular salary for the 

pay period of August 18, 2021, through August 31, 2021, and from September 

1, 2021, through September 28, 2021, two (2) full pay periods, SFL failed to 

compensate Plaintiff whatsoever. 

59. As such, Plaintiff is owed back pay for hours worked. 

60. Additionally, SFL is liable for double the amounts owed as liquidated 

damages under the FLSA as a result of the intentional and willful violation of the 

FLSA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 

a. Enter judgment against Defendant SFL under the FLSA; 

b. Award Plaintiff actual damages for the unpaid minimum wages; 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 8 of 16
9 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

c. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

d. Award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs; 

e. Award Plaintiff all recoverable interest; and 

f. Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper. 

Count III 

FLSA RETALIATION AGAINST SFL 

61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 40 above as if fully set forth herein. 

62. SFL is an employer under the FLSA. 

63. Plaintiff is an employee of SFL and was so during the relevant period. 

64. Plaintiff engaged in various instances of protected activity prior to 

the filing of this lawsuit, including: 

• Objecting to Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff unpaid wages (i.e.,

overtime and minimum wage) Plaintiff was entitled to under the FLSA;

• Sending Defendants and Counsel for Defendants correspondence 

objecting to Defendants’ unlawful pay practices; and 

• Further objecting to and complaining about unpaid wages to 

Defendants’ counsel. 

65. SFL retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in such protected 

activity, and continue to do so through transmission of threatening, anonymous 

text messaging directed to Plaintiff. 

66. SFL’s retaliatory conduct is intended to chill Plaintiff’s willingness 

to continue to enforce his rights under the FLSA. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 9 of 16
10 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

67. Reasonable workers would naturally be dissuaded from continuing 

to support an FLSA lawsuit when faced with the retaliatory conduct SFL engaged 

in. 

68. Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional distress because of SFL’s 

retaliatory conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 

a. Enter judgment for Plaintiff against Defendant SFL under the FLSA;

b. Award Plaintiff actual damages;

c. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

d. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental and emotional 

distress;

e. Award Plaintiff his attorneys’ fees and costs; 

f. Award Plaintiff all recoverable interest; and 

g. Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Count IV 

UNPAID OVERTIME VIOLATION AGAINST STILLMAN UNDER THE FLSA 

69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein. 

70. Upon information and belief, the annual volume of sales or business 

for SFL exceeded $500,000 during each calendar year of the relevant period. 

71. As part of its business, SFL sold goods and materials that traveled 

through interstate commerce during the relevant period. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 10 of 16
11 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

72. During the relevant period, SFL obtained and solicited funds from 

non-Florida sources (i.e., sales), accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used 

telephonic and electronic means to market and conduct business outside of the 

State of Florida, used telephonic and electronic transmissions going over state 

lines to do its business, transmitted funds outside the State of Florida, and 

otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce.

73. During the relevant period, SFL, upon information and belief, 

accepted credit card payments, wire transfers, and other forms of payments that 

were made or processed in connection with sales made inside and outside the 

state of Florida. 

74. SFL engaged in interstate commerce and was subject to the FLSA 

during all relevant periods. 

75. During the relevant period, Stillman served as Chief Executive 

Officer for SFL. 

76. In his capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Stillman can be held 

personally liable for wage & hour violations under the FLSA as a result of his 

direct exercise over day-to-day control of operations and involvement in the 

supervision and payment of employees. 

77. During Plaintiff’s employment with Stillman, Plaintiff worked over 

forty (40) hours per week on numerous occasions. 

78. Stillman employed Plaintiff to perform sales work. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 11 of 16
12 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

79. Despite customarily and regularly working overtime hours, and with 

knowledge of these overtime hours, Stillman never compensated Plaintiff at the 

rate of time-and-a-half for all overtime hours worked. 

80. Stillman intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages he is 

owed under the FLSA. 

81. Stillman is in violation of the FLSA and owes Plaintiff backpay. 

82. In addition, Stillman is liable for double the overtime amounts owed 

as liquidated damages under the FLSA as a result of its intentional and willful 

violations for up to the three-year statute of limitations afforded by the FLSA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 

a. Enter judgment against Stillman under the FLSA; 

b. Award Plaintiff actual damages for the unpaid overtime wages; 

c. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

d. Award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs; 

e. Award Plaintiff all recoverable interest; and 

f. Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper. 

Count V 

MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION AGAINST STILLMAN UNDER THE FLSA 

83. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein. 

84. Stillman was Plaintiff’s direct employer, as that term “employer” is 

defined by the FLSA. 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 12 of 16
13 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

85. According to Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, the 

terms “Employer”, “Employee”, and “Wage” have the meanings established under 

the FLSA and implementing regulations. 

86. During the relevant period, Stillman served as Chief Executive 

Officer for SFL. 

87. In his capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Stillman can be held 

personally liable for wage & hour violations under the FLSA as a result of his 

direct exercise over day-to-day control of operations and involvement in the 

supervision and payment of employees. 

88. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff worked numerous hours 

that were compensated well below the federal and Florida statutory minimum 

wage rates.

89. For example, Plaintiff received only 46% of his regular salary for the 

pay period of August 18, 2021, through August 31, 2021, and from September 

1, 2021, through September 28, 2021, two (2) full pay periods, Stillman failed to 

compensate Plaintiff whatsoever.

90. As such, Plaintiff is owed back pay for hours worked. 

91. Additionally, Stillman is liable for double the amounts owed as 

liquidated damages under the FLSA as a result of the intentional and willful 

violation of the FLSA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 

a. Enter judgment against Stillman under the FLSA; 

b. Award Plaintiff actual damages for the unpaid minimum wages; 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 13 of 16
14 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

c. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

d. Award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs; 

e. Award Plaintiff all recoverable interest; and 

f. Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper. 

Count VI 

FLSA RETALIATION AGAINST STILLMAN 

92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 40 above as if fully set forth herein. 

93. Stillman is an employer under the FLSA. 

94. Plaintiff is an employee of Stillman and was so during the relevant 

period. 

95. Stillman controls the day-to-day operations of SFL and did so during 

the relevant period. 

96. During the relevant period, Stillman served as Chief Executive 

Officer for SFL. 

97. In his capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Stillman can be held 

personally liable for wage & hour violations under the FLSA as a result of his 

direct exercise over day-to-day control of operations and involvement in the 

supervision and payment of employees. 

98. Plaintiff engaged in various instances of protected activity prior to 

the filing of this lawsuit, including: 

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 14 of 16
15 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

• Objecting to Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff unpaid wages (i.e.,

overtime and minimum wage) Plaintiff was entitled to under the FLSA;

• Sending Defendants and Counsel for Defendants correspondence

objecting to Defendants’ unlawful pay practices; and 

• Further objecting to and complaining about unpaid wages to 

Defendants’ counsel. 

99. Stillman retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in such protected 

activity, and continue to do so through transmission of threatening, anonymous 

text messaging directed to Plaintiff. 

100. Stillman’s retaliatory conduct is intended to chill Plaintiff’s 

willingness to continue to enforce his rights under the FLSA. 

101. Reasonable workers would naturally be dissuaded from continuing 

to support an FLSA lawsuit when faced with the retaliatory conduct Stillman 

engaged in. 

102. Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional distress because of 

Stillman’s retaliatory conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 

a. Enter judgment for Plaintiff against Stillman under the FLSA;

b. Award Plaintiff actual damages;

c. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

d. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental and emotional 

distress;

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 15 of 16
16 | Page PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.

12505 Orange Drive· Suite 908 · Davie, FL 33330

2030 S Douglas Road · Suite 203 · Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 485.5232 · www.PBA-Law.com

e. Award Plaintiff his attorneys’ fees and costs;

f. Award Plaintiff all recoverable interest; and

g. Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury with respect to all claims so 

triable. 

Dated: June 2, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ J. Freddy Perera 

J. Freddy Perera, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 93625

freddy@pba-law.com

Alexander T. Harne, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 126932

harne@pba-law.com

PERERA ALEMAN

12505 Orange Drive, Suite 908

Davie, Florida 33330

Telephone: 786-485-5232

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-80809-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 16 of 16