STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION )
CHEVROLET DIVISION and )
BEACON MOTORS, INC., )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 95-2543
) ANTHONY ABRAHAM CHEVROLET CO.; ) TROPICAL CHEVROLET, INC.; )
POTAMKIN CHEVROLET, INC.; ) SUN CHEVROLET, INC.; and GRAND ) PRIZE CHEVROLET, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on February 18-21, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida, before
D. Parrish, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: James Williams, Esquire
Michael A. Gruskin, Esquire General Motors Corporation Post Office Box 33122 Detroit, Michigan 48202
Fred J. Lotterhos, III, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP
50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Manual Kadre, Esquire de la Cruz Companies
3201 Northwest 72 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33122
For Respondents: James D. Adams, Esquire
A. Edward Quinton, III, Esquire Adams & Quinton, P.A.
Camino Real Centre 7300 West Camino Real
Boca Raton, Florida 33433 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Beacon Motors, Inc., is entitled to be established as an additional Chevrolet dealer in Miami, Dade County, Florida.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In April, 1995, a Notice of Publication advised the public that General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Division, seeks to add a new dealership to be owned by Beacon Motors, Inc., in Dade County, Florida. At that time, five existing Chevrolet dealers from the community or territory contested the new point and contended that the community or territory is adequately represented. Thereafter, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. In anticipation of the hearing scheduled for February 18, 1997, a Prehearing Statement was filed on February 3, 1997. The transcript of the proceedings was filed on March 14, 1997. The parties were granted leave until August 1, 1997, to file proposed recommended orders. The proposed recommended orders filed by General Motors and the Respondents have been considered in the preparation of this Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Division, is a manufacturer of automobiles and trucks and is a "licensee" pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.
Petitioner, Beacon Motors, Inc., is a proposed Chevrolet dealer to be established at 12th Street and 89th Court Northwest, in Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Respondents, Anthony Abraham Chevrolet, Co. (Abraham), Tropical Chevrolet, Inc. (Tropical), and Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. (Potamkin), are existing Chevrolet dealers located in Dade County, Florida. Each has standing to protest the proposed new dealership. All other existing dealers in the community or territory who opposed the proposed dealership have withdrawn their contests.
The area described in this record as the Sweetwater Community or Territory (Sweetwater Comm/Terr) is the appropriate geographical area to evaluate this case pursuant to
Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.
The Sweetwater Comm/Terr includes all of Dade County and part of the southern tip of Broward County, Florida.
Typically, the area wherein a dealer maintains a competitive advantage over all other same line dealers is designated an "area of geographic sales and service advantage" (AGSSA). This advantage is presumed because the dealer is closer to consumers within the AGSSA than is any other same line dealer.
In this case, Chevrolet is represented in eight of the nine AGSSAs which encompass the Sweetwater Comm/Terr. The proposed additional point would be located in AGSSA 15, currently un-represented by Chevrolet.
AGSSAs 7 (Potamkin), 9 (Tropical), 11 (Abraham), 12 (Sun Chevrolet, Inc.), 15 (Proposed Point), and 16 (Grand Prize Chevrolet) comprise an area described as the Miami Multiple Dealer Area ("MDA"). The Miami MDA is the contractual Area of Primary Responsibility ("APR") for these dealers.
The Miami MDA and AGSSA 15 are identifiable plots within the Sweetwater Comm/Terr.
Chevrolet's share of industry registrations or its "market penetration" in Florida lagged behind Chevrolet's national market penetration for the period 1993 to 1995. In 1995, Chevrolet's national penetration was 16.43%, while its Florida penetration was only 12.18%. In 1995, Florida ranked 44th out of 50 states in Chevrolet market share.
Vehicle preferences of Florida consumers for particular sizes and types ("product segments") accounted for only 1.39 percentage points of the 4.25 percentage-point shortfall between the Florida and national penetration rates in 1995. After adjusting for product segment preference, Florida's Chevrolet registration effectiveness compared to the expected average ranked 43rd out of 50. The shortfall between its Florida and national averages is due to deficiencies in Chevrolet's statewide
dealer network.
The principal deficiency with the dealer network, which would explain the shortfall between Chevrolet's penetration in Florida and its expected penetration, is dealer count, i.e., the number of Chevrolet dealers available to serve the public. Other possible deficiencies include dealer locations and operational performance.
Chevrolet's share of competitive franchises in Florida is below national average. This factor correlates to Chevrolet's ability to achieve a reasonably expected market share. In roughly half of all states, Chevrolet's share of franchises equals or exceeds national average. Florida, on the other hand, ranks 46th of 50 states in Chevrolet franchises as a percentage of industry franchises.
In this case, the national average (the sum of all adequate, inadequate, and non-represented markets) adjusted for local product segment preferences in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, the Miami MDA, and AGSSA 15, provides a reasonable standard for measuring the performance of the Chevrolet dealer network in the three areas. Mr. Anderson's assessment in this regard has been deemed persuasive.
Using national average adjusted for local product segment preferences produces an expected penetration (hereinafter "expected penetration" or "expected average") in 1995 of 14.07% for the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, 13.96% for the Miami MDA, and
14.31% for AGSSA 15. Actual Chevrolet penetration, however, was only 8.97% in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, 7.86% in the Miami MDA, and 7.64% in AGSSA 15.
The shortfall between expected and actual penetration described above demonstrates the level of the dealer network inadequacy in these areas. From 1993 to 1995, Chevrolet's registration effectiveness fell below expected average in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, the Miami MDA, and AGSSA 15.
The disparity in performance noted above is not due to a disproportionately high percentage of Hispanics. While the Sweetwater Comm/Terr has a significant Hispanic population, it cannot be concluded that a domestic manufacturer will not perform well in this market.
Ford, a domestic competitor of Chevrolet, exceeded or very nearly met its expected penetration from 1993 to 1995 in AGSSA 15 and the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, notwithstanding their large Hispanic populations. Nationally, Chevrolet performs much better against Ford than it does in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, AGSSA 15, or the Miami MDA. If Chevrolet performed as well as Ford in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, Chevrolet would have registered 5,364 more vehicles in 1995. Chevrolet currently has 8 dealers in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr; Ford has 10.
The applicant for the proposed point, Mr. de la Cruz, who is a Cuban-born Hispanic, acquired Sunshine Ford in Miami in 1993. Since 1993, Sunshine Ford has risen from bankruptcy to
become a top Ford dealer in Miami, selling mostly to Hispanics. Mr. de la Cruz also owns Miami Honda. Sunshine Ford and another Ford dealer in Miami, Machado Ford, which is also Hispanic owned, outsell Miami Honda every month in essentially the same market area. Ford also outsells Honda in Hialeah which has large Hispanic population. Mr. de la Cruz, who has actual experience with this market, determined that Hispanic buying preferences are
driven more by model of car than by whether the car is an import or a domestic.
Potamkin sells most of its Chevrolets to Hispanics.
Of the eight Ford dealers in Miami, including the top two in sales, five are Hispanic owned. Of the top three Honda dealers in Miami, two are Hispanic owned, and the third, which is partially Hispanic owned, is managed by an Hispanic. None of the existing Chevrolet dealers in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr is Hispanic.
There is no evidence in the record that Hispanics as an ethnic group have an inherent bias in favor of imports against domestics, including Chevrolet.
Dade County has been a growing market through 1995, and the demographics forecast that it will continue to grow through the year 2000. It is projected that the population in AGSSA 15 will grow at a rate of over 6% with households growth over 12% from 1995 to 2000.
Household growth in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr is to the west along the north/south corridor of the community. Chevrolet's current dealer network in Dade County is located mostly to the east along the ocean side of the market.
Abraham and Potamkin are located in areas of high household and population density. Typically, such areas support sales and service opportunity. The population and household density south of the proposed location is also high.
Since 1980, the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, the Miami MDA, and AGSSA 15 have experienced dramatic growth in total population, driver-age population, and households. Increases in households and population may indicate an increase in car-buying potential. During the same time frame, however, Chevrolet's dealer count in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr has decreased from ten to eight.
A comparison of Chevrolet's dealer count and population in Dade County as a percentage of national averages of those factors suggests that Chevrolet's dealer count for this area has lagged behind its population growth. Considering only population, Chevrolet would need two more dealers in Dade County.
AGSSA 15 and the Sweetwater Comm/Terr have a good distribution of income levels with very few pockets of extremely low or extremely high income. Because a majority of the population in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr and AGSSA 15 have incomes in the range of the median income of the average Chevrolet buyer,
lack of income does not contribute to Chevrolet's poor performance in these areas.
Employment trends in Dade County from 1980 through 1995 also reflect growing opportunity to make new car sales. This growing opportunity, coupled with Chevrolet's continued decline in performance, suggest that it is the dealer network causing a problem, and not the local economy or economic variables associated with income.
Retail registrations have grown in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, the Miami MDA, and AGSSA 15 from 1991 to 1995.
Registrations per dealer is a measure of the level of opportunity available in a market. Without the proposed dealer, the existing Chevrolet dealer network in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr and the Miami MDA has the second largest opportunity in the entire State of Florida. Even with the addition of the proposed dealer, the Miami MDA still remains the second largest opportunity in the State of Florida, while the Sweetwater Comm/Terr will have the fourth highest opportunity in the State of Florida.
Other factors which may be beyond the control of the dealers, such as product availability, do not explain the poor performance demonstrated in this record.
Additionally, share of voice, a measure of advertising, cannot explain the performance problems demonstrated in this record. Although import dealers utilize aggressive advertising,
it cannot be concluded that such efforts produce increased sales.
The quality of the advertising, the market that is targeted, the message conveyed, and the timing of the advertisement all play a role in determining the effectiveness of advertising. Other factors which affect advertising effectiveness include the appearance of the dealership, word of mouth from other people as to their experience with the dealership, and the community presence of the dealer. The purpose of advertising is to create awareness and consideration. If a manufacturer already has awareness and consideration, then more advertising may not increase its market share.
Share of voice does not necessarily correlate to market share. For example, Chevrolet's factory expenditures for advertising in South Florida increased from 1993 to 1995. And, although the South Florida Chevrolet Dealer Association raised its contribution to the dollars being spent on advertising directed to the Hispanic market, Chevrolet's market share declined.
Finally, other factors that might explain Chevrolet's poor performance (such as brand preference, product quality, product design, changes in the economy, age, and income variations of consumers purchasing vehicles) in the same segments and education levels have been accounted for in the segment adjustment process.
The growth in households, population and registrations
in the study areas, coupled with a decline in Chevrolet's dealer count, the strong correlation between share of franchises and market share, and the inability of existing dealers to adequately penetrate the market in AGSSA 15, explain why Chevrolet is performing poorly in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, the Miami MDA, and AGSSA 15. The existing dealer network has failed to adequately serve consumers in those areas.
Given the need to add another dealer to the Sweetwater Comm/Terr dealer network and the fact that there is no dealer in AGSSA 15, the best solution to Chevrolet's representation problem is to add another dealer to AGSSA 15.
The proposed Beacon site is a good location for a dealership because of its high visibility from the Dolphin Expressway, which is the main east/west expressway; its substantial frontage on 12th Street; and its location in an area that is becoming an auto cluster or row.
Based upon Mr. Anderson's assessment of the gross registration losses together with the insell from outside dealers, which is accepted, there should be enough lost opportunity available in this market to ensure that the proposed dealer will not take sales from existing dealers.
Further, it is concluded that under these conditions a concept known as stimulated competitive response should benefit the surrounding Chevrolet dealers. By enhancing their competitive efforts, either by advertising more, improving their
service departments, carrying more inventory, cutting their prices, or by having better salesmen, they will gain sales by responding positively to enhanced competition.
Abraham and Potamkin are profitable Chevrolet dealerships whose financial well-being will not be threatened by the proposed new point.
The addition of the proposed dealer in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr will increase customer convenience for both sales and service. Consumers should also benefit from the increased level of competition among dealers who should offer consumers more selection and better prices and service for their vehicles needs.
Raising competition and increasing brand awareness for Chevrolet in the marketplace should benefit the existing dealers.
Adding the proposed dealer would give Chevrolet an opportunity to correct one of its dealer deficiencies by increasing its number and improving its location.
Further, Chevrolet would have an Hispanic dealer/operator, which it currently does not have. Having an Hispanic dealer with strong business ties to the region would be a favorable cultural development for the community.
Adding the proposed dealer would serve the public interest by increasing employment, taxes, and money being spent in the area. Increased convenience serves the public interest. Adding a minority dealer would serve the public interest as expressed in the state franchise law. The proposed dealership
will fit in well with the mix of commercial and industrial uses in the proposed area, and it will generate involvement by the dealer in the community and charitable affairs in the area.
The proposed location is not so close to Abraham that distance alone must preclude the addition of the new point.
The addition of Beacon should benefit consumers and public interest by providing more competitive and convenient sales and service to a growing population. The addition of an Hispanic dealer to the Chevrolet family will direct sales to a market which is largely Hispanic and will continue community involvement by this dealer.
The existing dealers' abilities to perform their obligations under their dealer agreements should not be impaired by the addition of a new dealer at AGSSA 15.
Based upon the demographic factors of the community or territory, it is expected the market penetration which is currently below reasonably expected levels, would be improved by an additional dealer at AGSSA 15.
Chevrolet does not deny its existing dealers opportunities for reasonable growth, market expansion or relocation. Given the market opportunity in this community or territory, all dealers should benefit from the establishment of an additional point.
Chevrolet did not attempt to coerce existing dealers into consenting to an additional dealership.
With the addition of the Chevrolet point at AGSSA 15, the distance, travel time, and accessibility for this line-make will be improved. Other dealers are closer together than the proposed site is to its nearest Chevrolet competitor (Abraham) without adversely affecting one another. It is expected Chevrolet dealers will react similarly.
Although Abraham and Potamkin have failed in specific obligations of their dealer agreements, they are in substantial compliance with such agreements.
The existing dealership network has failed to perform at a reasonably expected level.
The economic and marketing conditions for this community or territory warrant an additional Chevrolet dealer at AGSSA 15.
While Chevrolet has begun efforts to improve performances in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr, the additional dealer at AGSSA 15 will best address the inadequacy of the dealer count in this market.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding.
Section 320. 642, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
320.642 Dealer licenses in areas previously served; procedure.–
* * *
(2)(a) An application for a motor vehicle dealer license in any community or territory shall be denied when:
A timely protest is filed by a presently existing franchised motor vehicle dealer with standing to protest as defined in subsection (3); and
The licensee fails to show that the existing franchised dealer or dealers who register new motor vehicle retail sales or retail leases of the same line-make in the community or territory of the proposed dealership are not providing adequate representation of such line-make motor vehicles in such community or territory. The burden of proof in establishing inadequate representation shall be on the licensee.
(b) In determining whether the existing franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers are providing adequate representation in the community or territory for the line-make, the department may consider evidence which may include, but is not limited to:
The impact of the establishment of the proposed or relocated dealer on the consumers, public interest, existing dealers, and the licensee; provided, however, that financial impact may only be considered with respect to the protesting dealer or dealers.
The size and permanency of investment reasonably made and reasonable obligations incurred by the existing dealer or dealers to perform their obligations under the dealer agreement.
The reasonably expected market penetration of the line-make motor vehicle for the community or territory involved, after consideration of all factors which may affect said penetration, including, but not limited to, demographic factors such as age, income, education, size class preference, product popularity, retail lease transactions, or other factors affecting sales to consumers of the community or territory.
Any actions by the licensees in denying its existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make the opportunity for reasonable growth, market expansion, or relocation, including the availability of line-make
vehicles in keeping with the reasonable expectations of the licensee in providing an adequate number of dealers in the community or territory.
Any attempts by the licensee to coerce the existing dealer or dealers into consenting to additional or relocated franchises of the same line-make in the community or territory.
Distance, travel time, traffic patterns, and accessibility between the existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make and the location of the proposed additional or relocated dealer.
Whether benefits to consumers will likely occur from the establishment or relocation of the dealership which the protesting dealer or dealers prove cannot be obtained by other geographic or demographic changes or expected changes in the community or territory.
Whether the protesting dealer or dealers are in substantial compliance with their dealer agreement.
Whether there is adequate interbrand and intrabrand competition with respect to said line-make in the community or territory and adequately convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of the line-make, including the adequacy of sales and service facilities.
Whether the establishment or relocation of the proposed dealership appears to be warranted and justified based on economic and marketing conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the community or territory, including anticipated future changes.
The volume of registrations and service business transacted by the existing dealer or dealers of the same line-make in the relevant community or territory of the proposed dealership.
The term "community or territory" is not defined by the statute. However, in this case, the parties have stipulated that the community or territory is the Sweetwater Comm/Terr. Accordingly, whether the existing dealers are providing adequate representation in the community or territory is resolved by this
order.
Having considered the statutory criteria applicable to this decision, it is concluded that the existing dealers are providing inadequate representation to the Sweetwater Comm/Terr. In this case the evidence establishes there has been, and is expected, population and household growth in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr. Chevrolet's market penetration in this area does not meet minimum reasonable expectations. In this regard, the presentation of Mr. Anderson has been deemed persuasive.
By establishing an additional point at AGSSA 15 (the proposed point), consumer convenience in the community or territory will be enhanced. The establishment of the point will also improve intra- and inter-brand competition. Since there is sufficient opportunity in the community or territory to support an additional dealer, existing dealers should respond positively to the competition and, in the long term, benefit from the additional dealer.
Chevrolet has demonstrated that it requires an additional dealer located in AGSSA 15 in order to achieve adequate representation in the Sweetwater Comm/Terr.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the additional dealership in AGSSA proposed by Beacon Motors, Inc., be granted.
DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1997, 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
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1997.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles
Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Division of Motor Vehicles
Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Division of Motor Vehicles
Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
James Williams, Esquire Michael A. Gruskin, Esquire General Motors Corporation Post Office Box 33122 Detroit, Michigan 48202
Fred J. Lotterhos, III, Esquire Scott D. Makar, Esquire
Holland & Knight, LLP
50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Manual Kadre, Esquire de la Cruz Companies
3201 Northwest 72 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33122
James D. Adams, Esquire
A. Edward Quinton, III, Esquire Adams & Quinton, P.A.
Camino Real Centre 7300 West Camino Real
Boca Raton, Florida 33433
Gerald B. Wald, Esquire Murai, Wald, Biondo & Moreno 9th Floor Ingraham Building
25 Southeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
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 |
|---|---|
| Nov. 12, 1997 | Notice of Appeal filed. (filed by: Potamkin Chevrolet) |
| Oct. 22, 1997 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1997 | Petitioner General Motors Corporation`s Reply to Respondents` Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1997 | (Respondents) Response to Petitioner, General Motors Corporation`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Sep. 29, 1997 | Exhibit A filed. |
| Sep. 05, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/18-21/97. |
| Aug. 01, 1997 | General Motors Corporation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Aug. 01, 1997 | Proposed Recommended Order of Respondents, Anthony Abraham Chevrolet, Inc. and Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1997 | Order sent out. (PRO`s due by 8/1/97) |
| Jul. 01, 1997 | Order sent out. (motion to reopen record for discovery is denied) |
| Jun. 12, 1997 | (From J. Adams) Notice of Reliance on Additional Authority filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1997 | (James Adams) Notice of Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 03, 1997 | General Motors Corporation`s Memorandum in Opposition to Respondents` Motion to Reopen Record of Discovery filed. |
| May 20, 1997 | (From J. Adams) Motion to Reopen Record for Discovery filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1997 | Letter to JDP from J. Adams Re: Revised Fontana Exhibits; Exhibits filed. |
| Mar. 14, 1997 | Notice of Filing; Volumes 1-9 of 9 DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1997 | (Respondents) Response to General Motors Corporation`s Objections to Depositions filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1997 | (Respondents) Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 11, 1997 | General Motors Corporation`s Reply Memorandum Regarding Objections to Documents filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1997 | Deposition of Knox Ramsey ; Deposition of Lesley Foy ; Deposition of Gerald M. Desmond ; Cover Letter filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1997 | Deposition of Walter T. Gieselman ; Deposition of Anthony Abraham ; Deposition of Alan Potamkin ; Deposition of Richard Almond Jr. ; Deposition of Nicholar R. Dujmovich (tagged filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1997 | Deposition of James Gurley; Exhibits ; Cover Letter; General Motors Corporation`s Notice of Filing Objections to Depositions; (Respondent) Memorandum filed. |
| Feb. 27, 1997 | Notice of Filing; DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript filed. |
| Feb. 25, 1997 | Notice of Filing; DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript (Excerpt, tagged) filed. |
| Feb. 18, 1997 | Hearing Held; applicable time frames have been entered into the CTS calendaring system. |
| Feb. 14, 1997 | (General Motors Corp.) Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | (Petitioner) Withdrawal of Protest By Grand Prize Chevrolet (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Respondents' Exhibit List filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1997 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Feb. 18-28, 1997; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Feb. 04, 1997 | (Respondent) Amendment to Joint Prehearing Statement (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 03, 1997 | Joint Prehearing Statement; General Motors Corporation`s Exhibit List; General Motors Corporation`s Amended Witness List; (Respondent) Witness List (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 28, 1997 | Order sent out. (Motion to Compel is denied) |
| Jan. 17, 1997 | Notice of Telephone Conference Call sent out. (Motion Hearing set for 1/24/97; 10:30am) |
| Jan. 16, 1997 | (From J. Adams) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 14, 1997 | (Respondents) Witness List filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1997 | General Motor Corporation`s Amended Witness List (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 09, 1997 | Chevrolet Motor Division's Response to Protestants' Motion to Compel filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1997 | CC: Letter to A. Edward Quinton from Michael Gruskin (RE: Request for Extension of Time) (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 23, 1996 | (Respondents) Motion to Compel filed. |
| Dec. 23, 1996 | (Respondents) Motion to Compel filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1996 | CC: Letter to Edward Quinton, III from Michael Gruskin (RE: agreed to extend the date for GM to file its responses) (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 16, 1996 | (From J. Adams) Re-Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1996 | (From J. Adams) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1996 | (From J. Adams) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Dec. 02, 1996 | (From J. Adams) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Nov. 14, 1996 | Joint Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. (from E. Quinton) |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. (from E. Quinton) |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | Order sent out. (Respondent`s Motion for protective order is denied) |
| Oct. 01, 1996 | (Respondents) Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| Oct. 01, 1996 | (Respondents) Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1996 | (Respondents) Third Request for Production to General Motors Corporation filed. |
| Sep. 27, 1996 | (General Motors) Motion to Compel Expert Witness Deposition Testimony (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | (From J. Adams) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | General Motors Corporation's Witness List filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | (From J. Adams) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | (From A. Quinton) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | GM`s Second Request to Produce Documents to Respondent Grand Prize Chevrolet; GM`s Second Request to Produce Documents to Respondent Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc.; GM`s Second Request to Produce Documents to Respondent Tropical Chevrolet, Inc.; GM`s Second Req |
| Sep. 19, 1996 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (Hearing Reset for Feb. 17-28, 1997; 9:30am; Prehearing Statement due by 2/1/97) |
| Sep. 16, 1996 | (Joint) Stipulated Protective Order; Cover Letter filed. |
| Sep. 10, 1996 | (Gerald Wald) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | Joint Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Aug. 29, 1996 | Joint Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 25, 1996 | (General Motors Corp.) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1996 | (Respondent) Re-Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | (From A. Quinton) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jul. 02, 1996 | General Motors Corporation's Notice of Filing; Letter to J. Adams from J. Williams Re: Scheduling expert witness depositions filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1996 | (From J. Adams) (3) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Subpoena for Deposition (from F. Lotterhos); Return of Service filed. |
| May 17, 1996 | (General Motors Corp.) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | Withdrawal of Protest by Sun Chevrolet, Inc. filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | Order sent out. (hearing rescheduled for Oct. 28 - Nov. 1 & 4-8, 1996; 11:00am; Miami) |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | Second Stipulated Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed. |
| Feb. 05, 1996 | (Fred J. Lotterhos III) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 31, 1996 | Order sent out. (hearing rescheduled for July 8-19, 1996; 11:00am; Miami) |
| Jan. 18, 1996 | Stipulated Joint Motion for Continuance of the Final Hearing filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1995 | Order sent out. (parties shall comply with stipulation as filed) |
| Dec. 05, 1995 | (Joint) Stipulated Protective Order (for Hearing Officer signature) filed. |
| Jun. 29, 1995 | Order for Prehearing Statement sent out. |
| Jun. 22, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for March 11-22, 1995; 11:00am; Miami) |
| Jun. 19, 1995 | (Respondent) Second Request for Production Propounded to Petitioner General Motors Corporation filed. |
| Jun. 16, 1995 | (Respondents) Second Request for Production Propounded to Petitioner General Motors Corporation filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1995 | Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jun. 02, 1995 | (Respondent) First Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Petitioner General Motors Corporation; First Request for Production Prounded to Petitioner General Motors Corporation filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1995 | (Respondents) Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| May 22, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| May 17, 1995 | Agency Referral Letter; Request for Hearing filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 17, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 05, 1997 | Recommended Order | Because existing dealers are inadequately serving community/territory, new Chevrolet point should be approved. |
