FRANCISCO BATISTA

v.

AT&T MOBILITY LLC

GORDO, J.

In these consolidated appeals, Sharon L. Orr, Mario Milian, Monique Ysidron, Edward Barger and Francisco Batista (collectively, the “Appellants") challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their complaints with prejudice. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

Finding no error in the trial court’s orders, we affirm. The Appellants entered into wireless customer agreements with AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T"), which included an administrative fee charge for providing unlimited data with potential speed restrictions. The Appellants later filed claims against AT&T based on relevant sections of the wireless customer agreement, alleging deceptive administrative fee charges and data throttling.¹ AT&T moved to dismiss the complaints with prejudice and included the wireless customer agreement as an exhibit to its motions. After a hearing, the trial court granted AT&T's motions to dismiss each complaint with prejudice. “A trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is subject to de novo review.” Skupin v. Hemisphere Media Grp., Inc., 314 So. 3d 353, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812, 815 (Fla. 2017)). “When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court ‘must limit itself to the four

On appeal, the Appellants argue the trial court erred in considering the wireless customer agreement attached to AT&T’s motion to dismiss.² We start with the basic premise that “[o]rdinarily only a complaint . . . and its attachments may be considered when passing on a motion to dismiss.” Air Quality Assessors of Fla. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 354 So. 3d 569, 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). When, however, “the terms of a legal document are impliedly incorporated by reference into the complaint, the trial court may consider the contents of the document in ruling on a motion to dismiss.” Id. (quoting One Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec.

First Ins. Co., 165 So. 3d 749, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). The Appellants raised the wireless customer agreement as the basis for their complaints and expressly relied upon the agreement to attempt to state causes of action. Because the allegations in the complaints incorporated the wireless customer agreement by relying on and quoting it, the trial court properly considered the agreement while ruling

on AT&T’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. See Von Dyck v. Gavin, 350 So. 3d 842, 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“The [Agreement] was not attached to the complaint but numerous references were made to the [Agreement] in the complaint, and Appellant raised the [Agreement] as the basis for one of its arguments.

Thus, we find no error in the trial court's dismissal of the [Agreement] portion of Appellant's complaint.”); Veal v. Voyager Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 51 So. 3d 1246, 1249-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“[T]he complaint refers to the settlement agreement, and in fact, [plaintiff’s] standing to bring suit is premised on the terms of that agreement.

Accordingly, since the complaint impliedly incorporates the terms of the agreement by reference, the trial court was entitled to review the terms of that agreement to determine the nature of the claim being alleged.”).

Affirmed.