5-27-04 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES FINAL ORDER #: HSMV-04-396-FOF-DMV GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MCNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., d/b/a AT MCNAMARA PONTIAC BUICK-GMC, Petitioners, \ vs. Case No. 03-1319 (SH- Cia FOUNTAIN OLDSMOBILE-GMC TRUCK, Respondent, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MCNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., d/b/a MCNAMARA PONTIAC BUICK-GMC, Petitioners, vs. Case No. 03-1320 COURTESY PONTIAC-GMC (GMC DEALERSHIP), Respondent. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MCNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., d/b/a MCNAMARA PONTIAC BUICK-GMC, Petitioners, vs. Case No. 03-1321 COURTESY PONTIAC-GMC (PONTIAC DEALERSHIP), Respondent. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MCNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., d/b/a MCNAMARA PONTIAC BUICK-GMC, Petitioners, Vs. COURTESY BUICK, Respondent. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MCNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., d/b/a MCNAMARA PONTIAC BUICK-GMC, Petitioners, vs. Case No. 03-1323 ORANGE BUICK-GMC, Respondent. / FINAL ORDER This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of a Recommended Order by Carolyn S. Holified, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order'. The Department hereby adopts the Recommended Order as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner, McNamara Pontiac, Inc., d/b/a McNamara Pontiac Buick-GMC, be granted a license as a franchised Pontiac, Buick and GMC dealer at ' Respondents, Fountain Oldsmobile GMC, Orange Buick GMC, Courtesy Buick and Courtesy Pontiac-GMC , filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. These exceptions are ruled on in the Appendix to this Order. 11500 East Colonial Boulevard, Orlando, (Orange County), Florida, upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. DONE AND ORDERED this 4S = day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. A. FORD, Dire€tor Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division otor Vehicles this /S°=_ day of July, 2004. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Fred J. Lotterhos, III, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 James D. Adams, Esquire Adams & Quinton, P.A. 80 S.W. 8" Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 Daniel Myers, Esquire J. Martin Hayes, Esquire Myers & Fuller, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Carolyn S. Holifield Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ronald Reynolds Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MCNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., d/b/a MCNAMARA PONTIAC BUICK-GMC, Petitioners, vs. Case No. 03-1322 : oD, COURTESY BUICK, Respondent. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MCNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., d/b/a MCNAMARA PONTIAC BUICK-GMC, Petitioners, vs. Case No. 03-1323 ORANGE BUICK-GMC, Respondent. / APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER RULING ON RESPONDENT’S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Ruling on Exceptions to Findings of Fact 19, Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 23. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 24. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 25. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 26. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 27. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 28. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 29. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 40. 46. 61. 125. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. Ruling on Exception to Conclusions of Law Rejected. The conclusion of law is legally correct.

Docket for Case No: 03-001319

Orders for Case No: 03-001319