In Alexandria, Virginia, a self-taught entrepreneur running a miniature toy manufacturing business is squaring off against a regional Pepsi bottler in federal court — without a lawyer. Paulo Lisboa, who operates under the business name Luciano Castellani, filed a complex multi-defendant lawsuit alleging a systemic labor misclassification scheme that he claims funneled an estimated $1.25 million in off-the-books wages.
The case has landed before Judge Leonie Brinkema, the same federal judge who presided over the 9/11 terrorist trials and the recent antitrust case against Google. The venue, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, is known among legal professionals as the “Rocket Docket” for its unusually fast pace.
Lisboa’s complaint targets Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Central Virginia, along with PV Enterprises Inc., a now-defunct entity he describes as a “zombie corporation” used to obscure the employment relationship. According to court filings, Lisboa has submitted more than 100 exhibits including audio recordings, text messages, and sworn declarations from former workers.
Alleged Threats and Retaliation on the Federal Record
What sets this case apart from typical wage disputes is the nature of the allegations and the documentation Lisboa has assembled. His complaint includes statements from multiple Pepsi employees describing the arrangement in blunt terms. One worker allegedly told him: “I thought this was an under-the-table type of thing.” Another reportedly said: “It’s a workaround designed to f— you guys over.”
More troubling are the alleged threats. Lisboa’s federal filings include a quote from an employee warning: “If you call Tom’s boss, it’s a wrap… he’ll put a hit out… you know how Pepsi is.” In a sworn declaration filed with the court, Lisboa’s partner described hiding in a shed with their two-year-old son and calling police, believing the family was in danger after Lisboa began raising concerns about the employment practices.
Procedural Wins in a Fast-Moving Court
Despite having no formal legal training, Lisboa has notched several procedural victories. He successfully filed a notice to cancel oral argument over defense objections, and obtained permission to file a surreply brief — a motion that is uncommon even for licensed attorneys representing pro se litigants. The court granted both requests.
Lisboa argues that defense counsel has misapplied case law in their motion to dismiss, specifically citing examples where the defense’s own cited precedents appear to undermine their arguments. A ruling on the motion to dismiss is currently pending.
The case draws parallels to Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, which involved similar allegations of worker misclassification. Lisboa contends his case represents evidence of a broader pattern within regional Pepsi bottling operations.
When he’s not preparing federal court filings, Lisboa runs Toy Soldier Central, a miniature manufacturing company. He describes himself as a polymath and autodidact, balancing parenting responsibilities with what he frames as a fight against corporate labor practices.
Lisboa is seeking $25 million in damages under various statutory frameworks. While he states he’s open to settlement discussions, court records indicate he’s prepared to take the case to trial. His approach represents an unusual test of whether a determined individual armed with documentation and self-taught legal knowledge can hold a Fortune 500-affiliated entity accountable in federal court — especially when representing themselves in one of the nation’s most demanding legal venues.