Legal Turmoil in Pasco County: Pro Se Litigant Seeks Sanctions Against Mercedes-Benz USA Over Warranty Dispute

PASCO COUNTY, FL - A legal battle unfolding in the County Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit has escalated as Anthony Gaeto, a pro se litigant, seeks sanctions under Florida Statute §57.105 against Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA) and its legal counsel, Daniel Klee, of the law firm Bromagen, Rathet, Klee & Smith, P.A. The dispute centers around an alleged breach of warranty and accusations of procedural misconduct in a small claims case that has grown increasingly complex.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when Gaeto’s 2015 Mercedes-Benz Electric Drive became inoperable in traffic and was towed to Mercedes-Benz of Wesley Chapel (MBWC), an authorized warranty repair facility. MBWC diagnosed the issue as a failure of the vehicle's drive battery - a component expressly covered under MBUSA’s eight-year/100,000-mile warranty. Gaeto alleges that MBWC initially confirmed the repair would be covered and provided a loaner vehicle, yet later reversed course and denied coverage.

MBUSA, through its attorney Mr. Klee, claimed the denial stemmed from MBWC’s failure to submit the proper warranty authorization request. However, Gaeto contends that MBUSA itself initially acknowledged the vehicle was within warranty and agreed to cover the repairs. Subsequently, he alleges, MBUSA reneged on this commitment without substantiating their position with factual evidence.

Motion for Sanctions: Accusations of Bad Faith and Procedural Gamesmanship

On February 12, 2025, Gaeto issued a formal demand (Exhibit A) for MBUSA to withdraw their Motion to Dismiss, claiming it was based on misleading arguments and improper use of legal standards. According to Gaeto, MBUSA’s motion referenced Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (RCP), which are not applicable in simplified small claims court proceedings governed by the Rules of Small Claims Court (RSCC). He argues this tactic was designed to complicate the case and gain an unfair advantage over a self-represented litigant.

Further, Gaeto asserts that MBUSA's legal team cited non-existent or publicly inaccessible case law without providing copies of the cases, violating procedural requirements and further delaying the matter. He also highlights misrepresentations of his statements and improper assumptions regarding maintenance records, despite MBUSA never inspecting the vehicle or requesting proof of maintenance.

The Warranty Dispute: Facts and Legal Implications

Gaeto insists that the drive battery failure falls squarely within the coverage terms of MBUSA’s express warranty. According to warranty documents cited in Exhibit B, battery maintenance was never listed as a cost-free requirement, thus leading Gaeto to seek third-party servicing. MBUSA has not presented evidence that a lack of maintenance caused the failure, nor have they provided documentation of any inspection or investigation into the battery issue.

The heart of Gaeto’s claim rests on the protections afforded by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal statute which places the burden on manufacturers, not consumers, to prove that a failure is excluded from coverage due to lack of maintenance. Gaeto argues that MBUSA’s failure to honor the warranty constitutes a breach for which they must be held accountable.

Claims of Procedural Misuse and Prejudice

Throughout the motion, Gaeto accuses MBUSA and Mr. Klee of deploying “procedural warfare” by intentionally misapplying rules, referencing irrelevant legal concepts, and falsely attributing claims to him that were never pled - such as breach of implied warranty or fraud. These tactics, he alleges, were employed not to address the merits of the case but to prejudice and overwhelm him as a self-represented litigant.

Moreover, Gaeto accuses MBUSA of inventing complexities such as lack of privity and mischaracterizing the nature of the relationships among the parties involved. He claims MBUSA attempted to sidestep their contractual obligations by shifting blame and sowing confusion about the legal roles of the parties due to filing errors in the case numbering.

Request for Judicial Relief and Sanctions

Citing Florida Statute §57.105 - which permits sanctions against parties and attorneys who assert claims or defenses not supported by the facts or law - Gaeto is requesting that the court:

1. Declare the warranty valid and binding at the time of the vehicle’s battery failure.

2. Order MBUSA to pay $8,000 in sanctions, or a court-determined amount, to compensate for the undue burdens placed upon him by the allegedly frivolous and bad-faith legal conduct of MBUSA and its counsel.

3. Acknowledge misconduct in attempting to leverage complex legal rules inappropriate for small claims court to prejudice a pro se party.

Broader Implications

This case underscores ongoing tensions in the small claims court system, particularly when large corporations engage in litigation with self-represented individuals. Legal experts suggest that the court’s response to Gaeto’s motion may set important precedent on the ethical boundaries of procedural tactics in small claims disputes.

Gaeto maintains that he is merely trying to resolve the issue on its merits - namely, whether MBUSA breached its warranty agreement by refusing to cover a battery repair clearly within the stated coverage period. The case continues to draw attention as a potential touchstone for the fair treatment of pro se litigants in warranty disputes involving large manufacturers.

This article is based on public filings in the Pasco County Court system, including Anthony Gaeto’s Motion for Sanctions dated February 12, 2025.