At issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner, Action Nissan, Inc., d/b/a Universal Hyundai ("Universal"), has standing to protest the establishment of Hyundai of Central Florida, LLC, d/b/a Hyundai of Central Florida ("HCF"), as an additional dealership of Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) in Clermont (Lake County), Florida, as described in the notice published in the Florida Administrative Register of March 26, 2015 (vol. 41, no. 6, p. 1480-81).Petitioner failed to establish standing to protest proposed additional Hyundai dealer in Clermont; Department's method of determining county population satisfies statutory criteria.

The issue in this case is whether Section 320.642(2)(a), Florida Statutes, permits the relocation by Petitioner General Motors Corporation (GM) of the dealership of Petitioner Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc. (Foster), from its present location to a new proposed location for the sale of certain line-makes of Chevrolet vehicles. In order to make that determination, the question arises as to whether Respondent Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc. (University), and Respondent Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc. (Stewart), are already providing adequate representation for sale of the subject Chevrolet vehicles in the community or territory of the proposed Foster relocation point.Petitioners failed to show that Respondents were not providing adequate representation. Recommend that the application to relocate dealership be denied.

The issue in this case is whether Section 320.642(2)(a), Florida Statutes, permits the relocation by Petitioner General Motors Corporation (GM) of the dealership of Petitioner Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc. (Foster), from its present location to a new proposed location for the sale of certain line-makes of Chevrolet vehicles. In order to make that determination, the question arises as to whether Respondent Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc. (University), and Respondent Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc. (Stewart), are already providing adequate representation for sale of the subject Chevrolet vehicles in the community or territory of the proposed Foster relocation point.Petitioners failed to show that Respondents were not providing adequate representation. Application to relocate dealership denied.

The issues are: 1) pursuant to section 320.641(1)(a), Florida Statutes,1 whether Petitioner has proved that Respondent's intention to eliminate five zip codes from Petitioner's Primary Area of Responsibility (PAR)2 constitutes a modification of its contract with Respondent to sell Porsche motor vehicles; if so, whether Petitioner has proved that the modification will adversely alter its rights or obligations under the contract or will substantially impair its sales, service obligations, or investment; and, if so, whether Petitioner has proved that Respondent failed to provide 90 days' prior written notice of the proposed modification to Petitioner and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) with the specific grounds for the intended modification; and 2) pursuant to section 320.641(3), if Petitioner has proved that Respondent's intention to eliminate the zip codes meets the conditions of section 320.641(1)(a), whether Petitioner has filed, within the 90 days' notice period, a petition for a determination that the intended modification is unfair and, if so, whether Respondent has proved that the intended modification is fair because it has been undertaken in good faith and for good cause.Dealer's area of responsibility part of franchise contract because Evidence Code, parole evidence rule, and Statute of Frauds do not apply to administrative proceedings. Removal of 2 zip codes voided. Removal of 3 zip codes allowed because immaterial.