In the County Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County, Florida
Auto Dealership V, LLC. d/b/a
Mercedes Benz of Wesley Chapel
Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant
VS
Anthony Gaeto
Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff, Third party Plaintiff
VS
Mercedes Benz USA
Third party Defendant
Pro-Se Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff’s
MEMORANDUM OF INTENT
RE: Requirement to Attach Written Contract to Breach of Contract Pleadings
I. PURPOSE OF THIS MEMORANDUM
This memorandum addresses the legislative and procedural intent behind the requirement that a party bringing a breach of contract claim must attach or incorporate by reference the written contract that forms the basis of their claim. This principle applies in the above-captioned small claims matter, currently pending in the Pasco County Court, where Plaintiff Auto Dealership V, LLC d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of Wesley Chapel has alleged a breach of contract against Defendant Anthony Gaeto but has not attached any written contract to their initial pleading.
II. LEGAL BASIS
While small claims proceedings are governed by the Florida Small Claims Rules, they are not exempt from basic pleading standards required to support a cause of action. Florida Small Claims Rule 7.020(a), provides:
“All documents upon which an action may be brought or a defense made shall be incorporated in or attached to the pleading.”
This includes any written contract that is the basis for a breach of contract claim. The absence of such a document renders the pleading legally insufficient and undermines judicial efficiency and fairness in small claims court proceedings.
III. LEGISLATIVE INTENT
A. Ensure Legal Sufficiency of Claims
The requirement that a written contract be attached to a breach of contract claim reflects the Florida Legislature’s intent to discourage vague or speculative lawsuits. In small claims court, this is even more critical due to the expedited nature of proceedings and the frequent appearance of pro se litigants. Without the contract, the court is unable to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim is supported by enforceable terms.
B. Provide Fair Notice to the Opposing Party
Especially when the defendant is pro se—as is the case here—the failure to attach the alleged contract deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to assess the merits of the claim. It forces the defendant to defend against general allegations without access to the actual terms allegedly breached.
C. Prevent Surprises and Promote Judicial Efficiency
Courts in Florida have consistently interpreted Florida Small Claims Rule 7.020(a) as requiring contracts to be attached to avoid unnecessary surprises at trial and to promote early resolution of issues. This protects judicial resources and provides transparency in pleadings.
D. Protect the Integrity of Small Claims Proceedings
The small claims process is intended to be accessible, fair, and just for both plaintiffs and defendants. Requiring attachment of contracts in breach of contract actions ensures that plaintiffs come to court prepared to prove their case and that defendants are not forced to defend against unsupported or manipulated terms.
IV. APPLICATION TO THIS CASE
In Pasco County Case No. 2023-SC-005668-SAXES, Auto Dealership V, LLC filed a claim for breach of contract against Mr. Gaeto without attaching any contract or written instrument that allegedly governs the transaction in dispute. To date, no such contract has been produced or incorporated by reference.
This omission prejudices Mr. Gaeto, who is forced to defend against a vague and unsupported claim. The plaintiff’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 7.020(a) undermines the fairness and integrity of this proceeding and supports a motion to strike or dismiss the pleading until such time as the written contract is properly attached.
V. CONCLUSION
The legislative and procedural intent behind Florida Small Claims Rule 7.020(a) is clear: a party asserting a claim based on a written instrument must attach or incorporate that instrument into the pleading. This requirement applies in small claims court and in this specific case. The failure of the plaintiff to do so not only renders the pleading deficient but also imposes an unfair burden on a pro se defendant.
Respectfully submitted,
Anthony Gaeto
Pro Se Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff, and Third-Party Plaintiff