STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MITSUBISHI MOTOR SALES OF )
AMERICA, INC., and JSL ) AUTOMOTIVE, INC., d/b/a FT. ) LAUDERDALE MITSUBISHI, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 99-3978
)
KING MOTOR COMPANY OF )
COCONUT CREEK LTD., )
)
Respondent. )
) MITSUBISHI MOTOR SALES OF )
AMERICA, INC. and JSL ) AUTOMOTIVE, INC., d/b/a FT. ) LAUDERDALE MITSUBISHI, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 99-3979
)
BILL SEIDLE'S MITSUBISHI, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on April 3-7, and May 1-2, 2000, at Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, before J. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.: Dean Bunch, Esquire
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P. 2282 Killearn Center Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3561
For Petitioner JSL Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Ft. Lauderdale Mitsubishi:
No Appearance
For Respondent King Motor Company of Coconut Creek Ltd.: John Forehand, Esquire
Myers, Forehand & Fuller
402 North Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent Bill Seidle's Mitsubishi: Kieran Fallon, Esquire
Kieran Fallon, P.A.
80 Southwest 80th Street Suite 2804
Miami, Florida 33130
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether the Petitioner, JSL Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Ft.
Lauderdale Mitsubishi (JSL), is entitled to relocate its motor vehicle dealership.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case began on August 20, 1999, when a notice of intent was published that announced the relocation of the Petitioner JSL, an existing motor vehicle dealership, from 200 East Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida to a proposed site at 2300 North State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The proposed site is west of the existing location but is within the same community
or territory as the protesting dealers. Those dealers, the Respondents, King Motor Company of Coconut Creek, Ltd. (King) and Bill Seidle's Mitsubishi (Seidle), timely filed petitions challenging the proposed relocation. The parties have stipulated that the Respondents have standing to protest the proposed relocation of the Petitioner JSL.
The matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on September 23, 1999.
Subsequently the parties stipulated to the discovery, hearing, and post hearing schedules in this cause. All parties timely submitted proposed recommended orders that have been considered in the preparation of this order.
At the hearing, the Petitioner, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (MMSA), presented testimony from Phil Smith, Ted Johnson, James Anderson, Cheryl Bloodworth, Fred Houser, Joseph DeLello, and Alex Ramos. The deposition testimony of Richard Recchia was also submitted on behalf of MMSA.
The Respondent Seidle presented testimony from Howard Moss, William Seidle, William John Oster, Joseph F. Tausch, III, and David K. Fields. The following witnesses testified on behalf of the Respondent King: David Frank Stepek and Albert Edward Appleby, III.
The Transcript in this cause was filed on June 2, 2000, and accurately lists the exhibits entered into evidence by all
parties. The parties' request to extend the time to file proposed recommended orders was granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner MMSA is a distributor and licensee of motor vehicles as defined by Section 320.60, Florida Statutes.
Compared to other established licensees, MMSA is a relative newcomer to the market in Broward County, Florida. Nevertheless MMSA is emerging as a brand able to effectively compete in the segments in which it offers vehicles.
Motor vehicle sales are divided into segments so that new car registrations may be tracked by popularity and dealer performance may be compared as to the vehicles it sells and not with those against which it cannot compete. For example, Mitsubishi does not compete in the truck market as it does not offer a new truck for sale. Therefore, Mitsubishi dealers are not expected to effectively compete in the new truck market.
MMSA does, however, offer a vehicle to compete in the following segments: basis small (Mirage), lower middle (Galant), upper middle (Diamante), sporty coupe (Eclipse/Spyder), sports car (3000 GT/Spyder), middle SUV (Montero Sport), and upper middle SUV (Montero). As to all of these segments, MMSA has experienced a significant growth in sales in Broward County, Florida.
Historically, there were only two franchised Mitsubishi dealers in Broward County. One of those dealerships is the
Petitioner JSL. The other long-time Mitsubishi dealer is located to the north of the Petitioner JSL. That dealer is identified in this record as Lighthouse Point. Principal owners of the Respondent King also own the Lighthouse Point dealership.
The Petitioner JSL is a franchised motor vehicle dealer fully authorized to lease, sell, and service the product of MMSA. The Petitioner JSL is located at 200 East Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The Petitioner JSL has always been located at its current address. The former owner of the franchise owns the real estate and JSL rents the land and facilities in order to conduct its business. The current owners of the Petitioner JSL purchased the dealership in 1997/1998.
The lease with the former owner will expire in the next few years and it is the Petitioners’ goal to relocate the dealership to a more modern, larger facility. If unable to relocate, however, the Petitioner could extend its lease with the former owner until approximately 2012.
The condition of the property as well as the terms of the lease were known to the Petitioner JSL at the time it elected to purchase the dealership. Because it does not own the facility, the Petitioner JSL has few incentives to improve the physical appearance of the dealership. Thus far it has done little more than paint the buildings.
Both the Petitioner JSL and Lighthouse Point are located in the eastern portion of Broward County.
The Respondents King and Seidle are also franchised motor vehicle dealers fully authorized to lease, sell, and service the product of MMSA. These dealerships are located in the western portion of the county.
The Respondent King's dealership is located at 4950 North State Road 7, Coconut Creek, Florida.
The Respondent Seidle's dealership is located at 5395 South University Drive, Davie, Florida.
The population growth in Broward County over the last five years is predominantly in the western portion of the county. The areas west of the Petitioner’s dealership have mushroomed in growth both in households and numbers of drivers. Employment and incomes have also increased.
As an emerging brand seeking to capitalize on the growth opportunities in the western portion of the county, the Petitioner MMSA encouraged two existing franchised dealers (the Respondents herein) to open new point dealerships in the western portion of Broward County.
Consequently, the Respondent King built and opened a new point dealership in the northwest quadrant of the county. This new dealership opened in 1998 and has thus far proven to be a successful franchise. Despite its investment of more than three million dollars (some of which might be allocated to
another dealer) in the acquisition, construction, and opening of the dealership, this Respondent has already established itself as the leading sales franchise in the county.
Similarly the Respondent Seidle was offered a new point in the southwest quadrant of the county. It acquired, and with MMSA’s help, constructed, and opened its new franchise dealership in March of 2000. The sales data for this dealer is limited due to its recent opening. Based upon conservative estimates, however, it is expected that this new dealership will prove successful at its location.
Like the Respondent King, the Respondent Seidle spent in excess of a million dollars in order to open its new point. Unlike the dealership Mr. Seidle owns in Miami, the new point in Davie is considered state of the art in design and function. It is projected that the Davie dealership will perform more successfully than the Miami Seidle dealership.
When both King at Coconut Creek and Seidle at Davie were proposed the Respondents assumed they would be the only Mitsubishi dealers authorized to locate in the western half of the county. The Petitioner MMSA did not make any assurances of that nature.
The Petitioner MMSA did not become aware of or consider the Petitioner’s request to relocate until after the other two dealers were either under construction or in the final stages of establishing their dealerships in the western portion of the
county. The Petitioner MMSA did not misrepresent the relocation request or hide its intention to support the request from the Respondents.
The Petitioner JSL seeks to relocate its dealership to the west to a parcel owned by its principal investor, Mr. Smith. The dealership would occupy a portion of the lot now housing Mr. Smith’s Buick dealership. Additionally, the entire facility would be improved in appearance and amenities. Theoretically, the Petitioner JSL would be more able to compete with the newer facilities also located in the western portion of the county.
The Petitioner’s current location is nearer to the downtown area of Fort Lauderdale. It is located in a marginal neighborhood with crime and undesirable areas in close proximity. The physical plant itself is dated in appearance and opportunities. The Petitioner JSL has not spent any substantial amount of funds to improve the physical plant, its security, or to acquire off-site storage or support facilities.
The proposed relocation site is also in a crime- stricken area however it is west of the predominant crime area. The Petitioner JSL is desirous of improving the proposed site. One of JSL's primary investors would also benefit from such improvements. The Buick dealership owned by Mr. Smith would continue to operate at the property but would have the benefit of the improved facilities.
All four Mitsubishi dealers have to shuttle customers to work if service work is to be performed during the day. The driving times for such shuttles would increase depending on the work location of the customers. Persons working in the downtown Fort Lauderdale area would most conveniently utilize the Petitioner’s current location for service.
All four dealerships have facilities that meet or exceed the Mitsubishi standards for sales and service volumes. The proposed relocation site would also comply with the Mitsubishi guidelines for sales and service.
On August 20, 1999, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles published a notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating MMSA's intention to allow the Petitioner JSL to relocate its dealership from its current address to 2300 North State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The notice of the proposed relocation correctly specified that the dealer operator of the relocated Mitsubishi dealership to be Tak Liu a/k/a Ted Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the current dealer operator and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Petitioner JSL. Mr. Johnson assumed his role with the company when it was purchased from the former owner of the dealership, a Mr. Holman.
Originally, the principal investors of the Petitioner JSL were Ted Johnson, Philip P. Smith, and Jon F. Lutter. Mr.
Lutter subsequently sold his interest in the Petitioner JSL to Michael Dayhoff.
Regardless of the accuracy of the notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly regarding the ownership of the Petitioner JSL, such notice correctly identified the dealer seeking to relocate and accurately described its current and proposed locations. Thus all dealers presumably affected by the proposed relocation were put on adequate notice of the proposal submitted by the Petitioners.
The Respondent King's dealership is approximately 13 miles in straight line distance from the existing location of the Petitioner JSL. If relocated to the proposed site, JSL would be approximately 11.5 miles in straight line distance from the Respondent King.
In terms of driving time, the Respondent King's dealership is approximately 26 minutes in driving time from the Petitioner's existing location. Comparatively the Respondent King's location is approximately 20 minutes in driving time from the Petitioner's proposed location.
As for the Respondent Seidle, the Petitioner's current location is approximately 11 miles in straight line distance from the existing JSL dealership. If relocated to the proposed site, the Respondent Seidle would be approximately 9 miles in distance from the Petitioner JSL.
If JSL were allowed to relocate, the driving time to the Respondent Seidle's dealership would not significantly change.
For purposes of this case, it is determined that the community or territory (comm/terr) served by these dealers is Broward County, Florida. The growth in this market will continue in the foreseeable future as the growths in population, employment, and industry new vehicle registrations have demonstrated.
Moreover, the current and future demographic factors indicate that Mitsubishi should be adequately represented by four dealers in this comm/terr.
As presently configured the Mitsubishi dealers in the comm/terr are on average 5.2 miles from the consumers in this market area. If allowed to relocate, the distance for consumers would be reduced to 4.4 miles. Either of these distances would allow Mitsubishi to effectively compete with like segment products.
The traffic patterns along the major north/south and east/west corridors in Broward County make all existing dealers easily accessible either north to south or east to west. There are no barriers to prevent customers from conveniently accessing dealers to the east, west, south, or north. The relocation of the Petitioner JSL to the proposed site would not dramatically
improve this accessibility except for those customers who reside in the western portions of the county.
And while the relocation of the JSL dealership to the proposed site would increase the convenience to the western customers, the Mitsubishi customers to the east who were previously served by this dealer would be required to travel a greater distance for sales or service.
With the opening and establishment of Seidle in Davie, Mitsubishi customers to the southwest will also have that point for sales and service convenience.
The proposed site does not constitute an identifiable plot within the comm/terr to support the relocation of the existing dealer. The newly opened Seidle together with King should adequately provide sales and service to the western portion of this market. Any inconvenience in sales or service previously experienced by the customers in the western portion of the county will be quickly cured.
With the expansion of the two new dealers in the western portion of the comm/terr, the Petitioner MMSA should experience increased visibility and sales.
The relocation of the Petitioner JSL would diminish the expected success of the Respondents in this western portion of the comm/terr.
It is too early to determine whether the Respondent Seidle will be as successful as the Respondent King. Given the
investments of both of these dealers, however, it is reasonable to afford them more time to demonstrate the strengths of their abilities to market to the western portion of the comm/terr.
Both dealers should be able to meet their obligations to the Petitioner MMSA.
Given the demonstrated success of the Respondent King, and the projections for this comm/terr, it is reasonably expected market penetration of the existing dealers as presently located will adequately serve the comm/terr.
In this case the Petitioner MMSA has encouraged the existing dealers by offering the existing dealers the opportunities to establish new points in the west, by recognizing the opportunity for sales growth in this comm/terr, and by assuring an adequate number of dealers for this market. The relocation of the Petitioner's dealership will not greatly improve the network of Mitsubishi dealers in Broward County.
The Petitioner MMSA has not attempted to coerce the existing dealers into consenting to the proposed relocation of the Petitioner JSL.
All existing Mitsubishi dealers are in substantial compliance with their dealer agreements.
Without the proposed relocation there is adequate interbrand and intrabrand competition in the comm/terr.
Without the proposed relocation there is adequate customer convenience in terms of sales and service.
Without sufficient actual data from the sales for the Respondent Seidle, it is impossible to determine whether the relocation is warranted and justified based on economic and market conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the comm/terr. The reasonable projected sales suggest the current dealer configuration to be sufficient and adequate as contemplated by the statute. If future population or household growths exceed the levels projected or if actual sales demonstrate a stronger market than projected, additional points in the western portion of the county may be warranted.
The actual volumes of registrations by the existing dealers suggest that the Petitioner JSL could perform stronger without encroaching on the sales reasonably expected to be made by the Respondents.
With regard to the Petitioners' assertions that the current neighborhood limits the JSL's ability to do business, it is determined that other motor vehicle dealerships in proximity to the Petitioner's store have remained in business in the neighborhood. Those dealers (Lincoln-Mercury, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Isuzu, Ford, Jaguar, and Honda) have not relocated due to crime or other neighborhood problems.
It is further determined that the data relied upon by Petitioners to calculate a shortfall in the comm/terr failed to recognize that the fourth dealer, the Respondent Seidle, was not
in business until March 2000. The addition of the fourth point will relieve an deficiency in performance for the comm/terr.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings.
MMSA bears the burden of proof in this cause to establish that the dealer's request to relocate the motor vehicle dealership should be approved by the agency.
Section 320.642(1), Florida Statutes, addresses the notice requirements for a proposed relocation. That section provides:
Any licensee who proposes to establish an additional motor vehicle dealership or permit the relocation of an existing dealer to a location within a community or territory where the same line-make vehicle is presently represented by a franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers shall give written notice of its intention by certified mail to the department. Such notice shall state:
The specific location at which the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealership will be established.
The date on or after which the licensee intends to be engaged in business with the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer at the proposed location.
The identity of all motor vehicle dealers who are franchised to sell the same line-make vehicle with licensed locations in the county or any contiguous county to the county where the additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer is proposed to be located.
The names and addresses of the dealer- operator and principal investors in the
proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealership.
Immediately upon receipt of such notice the department shall cause a notice to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The published notice shall state that a petition or complaint by any dealer with standing to protest pursuant to subsection (3) must be filed not more than 30 days from the date of publication of the notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The published notice shall describe and identify the proposed dealership sought to be licensed, and the department shall cause a copy of the notice to be mailed to those dealers identified in the licensee's notice under paragraph (c).
Respondents argue that the Petitioner MMSA failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Section 320.642(1), Florida Statutes, in two material ways. First, it is undisputed that the Department in fulfilling its responsibility under the act incorrectly identified the dealer-operator and principal investors. Second, subsequent to the publication of the notice, one of the principal investors in the Petitioner JSL sold his interest in the company to another investor. Respondents maintain that either or both of these events rendered the published noticed defective such that the Department may not act on the request for relocation as a matter of law.
It is concluded that the Petitioners complied with the foregoing section and submitted the correct information regarding the proposed relocation of the dealership to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Additionally, it is concluded
that the published notice was adequate to place the public and affected motor vehicle dealers of the locations at issue.
It is further concluded that the Respondents have standing to challenge the proposed relocation of the Petitioner's dealership.
Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, governs a request to relocate a motor vehicle dealership. Such statute outlines eleven criteria that must be reviewed in order to determine whether a proposed relocation is advisable. In this case the Petitioner MMSA argues that the relocation is necessary in order to cure the inadequate representation experienced by its brand in the comm/terr. Respondents maintain that a change in location is unwarranted unless, after a balancing of all criteria, it is established the existing dealers are not providing adequate representation.
It is concluded that the Respondents timely challenged the proposed relocation pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.
As to the remaining criteria, it falls to the Petitioner MMSA to establish an inadequate representation within the comm/terr based upon a balancing of the eleven listed statutory guidelines. It has failed to meet that burden.
In this case the existing dealers are providing a level of representation in the comm/terr that is adequate. The new dealer points in the western portions of the county will adequate
address the accessibility issues for the growing population in that region.
There is no "identifiable plot" within this comm/terr that is not being actively marketed by the four existing dealers. The creation of a geographic advantage for this Petitioner would not create such a plot.
Having carefully weighed the statutory criteria found in Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, it is concluded that the existing Mitsubishi dealers are providing adequate representation to MMSA in this comm/terr and for the western region which Petitioner has attempted to create as an "identifiable plot." While the relocation of the Petitioner JSL might serve the individual needs of one dealer, it cannot be concluded that that result would serve an overall benefit to the consumers, the public, the other existing dealers, or MMSA.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the request to relocate the motor vehicle dealership.
DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2000.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles
Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504
John Forehand, Esquire Walter E. Forehand, Esquire
Myers, Forehand & Fuller, P.A.
402 North Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Kieran P. Fallon, P.A.
80 Southwest 80th Street, Suite 2804 Miami, Florida 33130
Dean Bunch, Esquire
Sutherland, Asbil & Brennan, L.L.P. 2282 Killearn Center Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3561
James Gregory Humphries, Esquire Shutts & Bowen
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801-4626
Enoch John Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
William T. Joyce, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles
Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 13, 2000 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 06, 2000 | Notice of Adoption (Respondent) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 03, 2000 | Response to Exceptions to Recommended Order filed by Respondent. |
| Sep. 11, 2000 | Recommended Order issued (hearing held April 3-7, and May 1-2, 2000) CASE CLOSED. |
| Jul. 21, 2000 | Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America`s Post Hearing Brief; Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America`s Appendix to Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 21, 2000 | Proposed Recommended Order (Respondent) filed. |
| Jul. 21, 2000 | Notice of Filing; Recommended Order (Respondent) filed. |
| Jul. 12, 2000 | Order sent out. (agreed motion to extension of ten days in which to file proposed recommended order is granted) |
| Jul. 07, 2000 | Agreed Motion to Extension of Ten-Days in Which to File Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile) |
| Jun. 02, 2000 | (3 Volumes) Transcript filed. |
| May 01, 2000 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Apr. 21, 2000 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for May 1 through 3, 2000; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, Fl.) |
| Apr. 19, 2000 | (5 Volumes) Transcript filed. |
| Apr. 14, 2000 | Letter to Judge J. D. Parrish from J. Forehand Re: Location of hearing filed. |
| Apr. 13, 2000 | (D. Bunch) Notice of Depositions (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 11, 2000 | (D. Bunch) Notice of Filing; Pages 74 through 78 of the deposition of David Fields, taken March 29, 2000 (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 03, 2000 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5/1/00) |
| Apr. 03, 2000 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to May 1 and 2, 2000; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, Fl. |
| Mar. 31, 2000 | Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.`s Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction w/exhibits filed. |
| Mar. 30, 2000 | (J. Forehand) Amended Witness and Exhibit List of Respondent, King Motor Company of Coconut Creek Ltd. filed. |
| Mar. 29, 2000 | (J. Forehand) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed. |
| Mar. 28, 2000 | Order sent out. (motion to continue is denied) |
| Mar. 27, 2000 | (W. Forehand, K. Fallon, D. Bunch, J. Humphries) Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 27, 2000 | Letter to Judge J. D. Parrish from D. Bunch Re: Requesting hearing be held at different location (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 24, 2000 | Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 24, 2000 | (K. Fallon) Amended Motion to Continue Administrative Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 15, 2000 | Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.`s Response in Opposition to Amended Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 14, 2000 | Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.`s Response in Opposition to Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 14, 2000 | (K. Fallon) Motion to Continue Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Mar. 09, 2000 | (J. Forehand) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Mar. 02, 2000 | Order sent out. (Stipulated protective order entered into by the parties shall be in full force and effort for this matter) |
| Feb. 21, 2000 | (K. O`Keefe, F. Humphries, W. Forehand) Amended Stipulated Protective Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 17, 2000 | (K. O`Keefe, W. Forehand, M. Seidle) Stipulated Protective Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 07, 2000 | (Kieran Fallon) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1999 | Letter to Judge J. D. Parrish from D. Bunch Re: Requesting to be added as counsel for Mitsubishi (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 22, 1999 | Order Granting Consolidation sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 99-003978, 99-003979) |
| Oct. 22, 1999 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 3 through 7, 2000; 9:00am; Miami) |
| Oct. 22, 1999 | Order of Pre-hearing Instructions sent out. |
| Oct. 15, 1999 | (K. O`Keefe, M. Seidle) Motion to Consolidate and Amended Response to Initial Order (cases to be consolidated 99-3978, 99-3979) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 08, 1999 | (Joint) Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 28, 1999 | Initial Order issued. |
| Sep. 23, 1999 | Referral Letter; Petition or Complaint Protesting Establishment of Dealership filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 12, 2000 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 11, 2000 | Recommended Order | Data is insufficient to conclude there is an identifiable plot of inadequate representation as four existing dealers at current locations should provide adequate representation. |
