The Issue The issue in this case is whether Vista Motors' new BMW dealership at 4401 West Sample Road, Coconut Creek, resulted from a relocation and reopening of Vista Motors' former BMW dealership at 700 North Federal Highway, Pompano Beach, in compliance with Section 320.642(5)(b), Florida Statutes, which grants certain "reopening" dealers an exemption from protest.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, Intervenor BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA")2 unveiled a "market strategy" to all of the BMW dealers doing business in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties (hereafter, collectively, the "South Florida Dealers") whereby each of them would be granted an additional or "satellite" BMW dealership3 provided, among other conditions, that each dealer agreed to waive its protest rights under Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, with regard to these satellite dealerships.4 The South Florida Dealers comprised three distinct business enterprises, which were often identified with reference to their respective principals: Norman Braman, Charles Dascal, and J. S. Holman. Mr. Braman held interests in BMW dealerships located in Miami and West Palm Beach. One of Mr. Braman's companies was (and is) Petitioner Palm Beach Imports, Inc., d/b/a Braman Motorcars ("Braman"), which is the dealer operating in West Palm Beach. Mr. Dascal held interests in BMW dealerships located in Broward County and in Miami. One of Mr. Dascal's companies was (and is) Intervenor Pompano Imports, Inc., d/b/a Vista Motors ("Vista"), which operated a BMW dealership in Pompano Beach until October 7, 2003, and now does business as a BMW dealer in the City of Coconut Creek, Florida. Mr. Holman was a principal in Ft. Lauderdale Imports, Ltd. ("Lauderdale"), a dealer doing business in Ft. Lauderdale. For ease of reference the South Florida Dealers will be referred to individually as Braman, Vista, and Lauderdale.5 As originally conceived and formally presented to the South Florida Dealers in December 1996, BMW NA's market strategy called for Braman to be awarded a satellite dealership in Delray Beach, a municipality which is situated in the southern part of Palm Beach County, on the coast. Vista and Lauderdale, under the original plan, would have been offered satellite locations in Broward County west of the Turnpike. BMW NA and the South Florida Dealers never reached an agreement regarding this particular strategy, however, because Vista objected to the proposed Braman satellite in Delray Beach. Notwithstanding the absence of an agreement involving all of the South Florida Dealers, at some point in 1997 Vista and BMW NA revisited the possibility, which had been discussed from time to time over the past several years, of relocating Vista's BMW dealership in Broward County from its Pompano Beach location to a better location. Vista's facility in Pompano Beach, whose street address was 700 North Federal Highway ("N. Federal Hwy"), had become outdated and cramped, having been built decades earlier, and BMW NA and Vista wanted Vista to have a larger, more modern shop. Also, moving westward would place the dealership closer to Interstate 95 and the Turnpike, making it more accessible to customers. Thus, relocation made sense for a number of reasons. In mid-1997, BMW NA approved a plan to move Vista's BMW dealership to a location in the City of Coconut Creek, Florida, which is in western Broward County. Acquiring the property to which Vista's dealership would relocate took time. An initial deal fell through due to title defects. In late 1998, Vista entered into a contract to purchase the "Lyons Creek piece," an 11-acre parcel located near the intersection of West Sample and Lyons Roads in Coconut Creek. A few months later, by letter dated March 24, 1999, BMW NA notified Braman that Vista had requested permission to relocate its dealership to this property. In the meantime, Vista launched another project: the expansion of its service department at 700 N. Federal Hwy. To accomplish this, Vista rented property, via a lease dated February 1, 1999, from a neighboring automobile dealership operated by Daewoo Motor America, Inc. ("Daewoo"). The Daewoo dealership's address was 744 N. Federal Hwy. Through its lease with Daewoo, Vista obtained the right to use 24 "work stalls" located in an automobile service center at 744 N. Federal Hwy. This arrangement increased Vista's service capacity, allowing the BMW dealership to handle a larger volume of the lucrative maintenance and repair business than had previously been possible. Vista's customers probably were not aware of the expansion, however, since all consumer transactions continued to take place at 700 N. Federal Hwy. By letter dated May 12, 1999, BMW NA notified Respondent Department Of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the "Department") that Vista intended to relocate its BMW dealership from 700 N. Federal Hwy to the Lyons Creek piece. BMW NA and Vista took the position that, pursuant to Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes,6 the proposed reopening of Vista's dealership at the new location in Coconut Creek should not be considered subject to competing dealers' administrative protests. Vista finally obtained title to the Lyons Creek piece in March 2000. Throughout the rest of the year 2000, Vista proceeded to take steps towards relocating its BMW dealership, having architectural plans for the new facilities drawn up and applying for the necessary permits. In late 2000, a new opportunity arose for Vista. A piece of property located at 4401 West Sample Road ("W. Sample Rd") in Coconut Creek became available at an attractive price. This property, which comprised approximately 19 usable acres, suited Vista's needs better than the Lyons Creek piece because, in addition to being larger, it included existing dealership facilities, having once been the location of an AutoNation dealer. Within a short time, Vista entered into a contract to purchase the property at 4401 W. Sample Rd. Now, plans to relocate Vista's BMW dealership to the Lyons Creek piece were shelved in favor of moving to AutoNation's former location. In July 2001, Vista acquired title to the land and buildings at 4401 W. Sample Rd. While Vista worked to ready the property at 4401 W. Sample Rd for use as a BMW dealership, it also pursued a deal to purchase the Daewoo property at 744 N. Federal Hwy, which was adjacent to its existing dealership. In May 2002, Vista reached a verbal agreement to buy this real estate, but Daewoo's bankruptcy complicated the deal. Litigation to enforce the oral contract ensued. In August 2002, BMW NA signed a letter of intent approving Vista's request to relocate its BMW dealership to 4401 W. Sample Rd. Soon thereafter, by letter dated September 13, 2002, BMW NA notified the Department that Vista intended to relocate its BMW dealership from 700 N. Federal Hwy to 4401 W. Sample Rd in Coconut Creek. Just as in May 1999, BMW NA and Vista took the position that this relocation should be considered exempt, pursuant to Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes, from the protest provisions of Section 320.642. Pursuant to Section 320.642(1)(d), Florida Statutes, the Department caused BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to be published in the September 27, 2002, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. On September 27, 2002, also in accordance with Section 320.642(1)(d), the Department mailed copies of BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to all existing BMW dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. Within two weeks, however, the Department mailed letters to these same dealers explaining that the proposed reopening of Vista's BMW dealership at 4401 W. Sample Rd would not be a "protestable" event after all. In November 2002, BMW NA presented the South Florida Dealers with a draft Market Action Agreement in an attempt to resurrect the market strategy that had died on the vine in 1996. The draft agreement referred to the relocation of Vista's dealership to 4401 W. Sample Rd, which was under way, and raised the possibility of Vista's resuming BMW dealership operations at 700 N. Federal Hwy at some unspecified point in time after the pending relocation. Specifically, the draft contract stated: Prior to the execution of this Agreement, Vista Motor Company has requested that BMW NA approve a relocation of its BMW [dealership] from [700 North Federal Highway] to a facility that is under development at 4401 West Sample Road, Coconut Creek, Florida (the "Sample Road Location"). This request has been approved and BMW NA provided notice of the relocation to the [Department]. It also has been approved by the [Department]. Immediately upon completion of this relocation from [700 North Federal Highway] to the Sample Road Location, the North Federal Highway Location will become an additional proposed location that is the subject of this agreement not to protest. The draft Market Action Agreement offered Braman the opportunity to open a satellite dealership in north Palm Beach County, suggesting the Town of Jupiter as the likeliest spot. Braman had already determined that zoning restrictions in Jupiter effectively forbade the opening of an automobile dealership there, however, and Braman was not interested in establishing a satellite dealership in another area north of its West Palm Beach site, preferring instead to open an additional BMW dealership in Delray Beach, which BMW NA would not approve. Thus, Braman rejected the draft Market Action Agreement of November 2002. In March 2003, BMW NA notified Braman that the proposed Market Action Agreement had failed for lack of the South Florida Dealers' unanimous consent and that BMW NA intended to move forward anyway on plans to establish satellite dealerships for Vista and Lauderdale. Braman was invited to pursue the opportunity to open a satellite dealership in north Palm Beach County. By letter dated April 14, 2003, Vista formally requested BMW NA's permission to open a satellite dealership at 744 N. Federal Hwy, where the Daewoo dealership had been located. Vista had not yet secured title to that property but was getting close. Vista asked that it be allowed to "operate out of the current facility" at 700 N. Federal Hwy if the effort to purchase the Daewoo property failed, "provided [the current facility] is renovated in accordance with BMW corporate identity standards." On April 29, 2003, BMW NA and Vista entered into a Letter of Intent authorizing Vista to open a satellite dealership at the "Satellite Location," which was defined as 700 N. Federal Hwy and 744 N. Federal Hwy. This Letter of Intent called for Vista to sell new BMW automobiles at 744 N. Federal Hwy and to sell "Certified Pre-Owned" (used) vehicles at 700 N. Federal Hwy. By letter dated May 5, 2003, BMW NA notified the Department that Vista planned to establish an additional or "supplemental" BMW dealership at 744 N. Federal Hwy, to be opened on or after June 30, 2003. As required by statute, the Department not only caused a notice to be published in the May 16, 2003, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly regarding this putative supplemental dealership, but also it mailed copies of BMW NA's May 5, 2003, notice to all existing BMW dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. No dealer timely protested Vista's intended opening of a supplemental dealership at 744 N. Federal Hwy. Ordinarily, following an "unprotested" notice, the Department enters a final order authorizing the issuance of a license for the proposed additional or relocated dealership upon the applicant's satisfaction of all other requirements for licensure. In this case, however, before the entry of such an order, the Department learned that 744 N. Federal Hwy and 700 N. Federal Hwy were contiguous properties. Based on this information, the Department informed BMW NA and Vista, by letter dated July 10, 2003, of its decision that because Vista was still operating a BMW dealership at 700 N. Federal Hwy, and because 744 N. Federal Hwy was immediately adjacent to the existing dealership, the proposed supplemental dealership at 744 N. Federal Hwy would be deemed an "expansion" of the existing dealership, as opposed to an "additional" dealership. The Department further concluded that: (1) a license was not needed and hence would not be issued for the expansion of Vista's dealership into 744 N. Federal Hwy; (2) the opening of the dealership that Vista proposed to establish at 4401 W. Sample Rd, which would come into being as Vista's existing dealership expanded, could not be considered exempt from protest, as previously thought, for no "relocation" would be occurring; and (3) notice and an opportunity to protest would need to be provided with respect to 4401 W. Sample Rd before a license for an additional dealership at that location could be issued. BMW NA and Vista each requested a hearing to challenge the Department's findings and conclusions, initiating, respectively, DOAH Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970. These cases were subsequently consolidated, and Braman was allowed to intervene in them. On September 18, 2003, while the above-mentioned administrative litigation was pending, Vista filed an application with the Department for modification of its license, to reflect the relocation of Vista's BMW dealership from 700 N. Federal Hwy to 4401 W. Sample Rd. Vista asserted that the planned reopening at 4401 W. Sample Rd would not be subject to protest, noting in its cover letter to the Department, dated September 12, 2003, that BMW NA had previously "notified [the Department] of the applicability of [the Section 320.642(5)] exemption via correspondence . . . dated September 13, 2002."7 On September 30, 2003, before the final hearing in the consolidated administrative proceeding, the Department, BMW NA, and Vista (but not Braman) entered into a settlement agreement. Upon being advised of the settlement, the presiding administrative law judge (not the undersigned) closed DOAH's files in Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970 and relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. Pursuant to the referenced settlement agreement, Vista notified the Department by letter dated October 7, 2003, that Vista would cease all BMW dealership operations at 700 N. Federal Hwy at the close of business that day and would commence BMW dealership operations at 4401 W. Sample Rd on October 8, 2003. Promptly upon receipt of this notice, the Department modified Vista's motor vehicle dealer license to permit Vista to conduct BMW dealership activities at 4401 W. Sample Rd. This modification effectively "de-licensed" Vista as a BMW dealer at 700 N. Federal Hwy. On October 7, 2003, as promised, Vista stopped selling and servicing BMW automobiles at 700 N. Federal Hwy. and moved its dealership to 4401 W. Sample Rd.8 To effect the move, Vista relocated its inventory of new and used BMW vehicles, along with other line-make used automobiles that had been taken in trade for BMW vehicles, plus BMW-specific equipment, tools, and parts. Employees of Vista's BMW dealership were transferred to the new worksite. On October 8, 2003, Vista started selling and servicing BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at 4401 W. Sample Rd.9 It is undisputed that from October 8, 2003, through the final hearing in this cause, Vista did not conduct any BMW- related dealership operations at the N. Federal Hwy location. In other words, Vista's BMW dealership was continuously "closed" during that period of time.10 By letter dated October 15, 2003, in accordance with the settlement agreement referenced above, the Department notified BMW NA and Vista that it intended not to issue Vista a license to operate a BMW dealership at 744 N. Federal Hwy unless and until (a) Vista first relocated to 4401 W. Sample Rd and thereafter BMW NA gave the Department another notice of its intent to allow Vista to open a dealership at 744 N. Federal Hwy, which notice would, upon publication, create a new point of entry for substantially affected dealers to protest the latter project; and (b) all other legal requirements for licensure were met, including the failure of any protest that might timely be filed. BMW NA and Vista each timely challenged the Department's preliminary determination, initiating DOAH Case Nos. 03-4250 and 03-4277, respectively, which were consolidated and tried together before the undersigned on February 10, 2004. The resulting Recommended Order urged the Department to proceed in accordance with its previously announced intention. See BMW of North America, LLC v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, DOAH Case Nos. 03-4250 and 03-4257, 2004 WL 833605, *10 (Fla.Div.Admin.Hrgs. Apr. 15, 2004). On May 3, 2004, the Department adopted the Recommended Order as its Final Order. See Final Order No. HSMV 04-224-FOF-DMV (Fla.Dept. H.S.M.V. May 3, 2004). As of the final hearing in this case, no new notice had been provided to the Department of BMW NA's intention to permit Vista to establish an additional BMW dealership at 700- 744 N. Federal Hwy. Nevertheless, the evidence introduced at hearing shows that, as of early May 2004, BMW NA and Vista were still planning for Vista someday to open a BMW dealership at the former location. Vocabulary To facilitate the ensuing discussion, it will be helpful to develop a vocabulary tailored to the facts and issues presented. As used herein, the term "source site" will refer to the location (i.e. the place) from which a dealership has been, or will be, moved. Thus, 700 N. Federal Hwy is (or is claimed to be) a source site. The term "source dealership" shall mean a dealership that will be relocated to another place. Thus, a source dealership exists, as such, only at a source site. In this case, the BMW dealership that Vista operated at 700 N. Federal Hwy until October 7, 2003, was (or is claimed to have been) a source dealership. The term "target site" shall refer to any location to which a source dealership has been, or will be, moved. Here, then, 4401 W. Sample Rd is (or is claimed to be) a target site. A dealership established, or proposed to be opened, at a target site will be called a "target dealership." Thus, a target dealership exists, as such, only at a target site. Vista's presently licensed BMW dealership at 4401 W. Sample Rd is (or is claimed to be) as target dealership. It should be kept in mind that the terms "source dealership" and "target dealership" refer to two sides of the same coin——not to two separate coins. This is because, to speak of relocating or moving a dealership from one place to another is to imply, necessarily, that the source dealership and the target dealership are in some meaningful senses the same dealership (call it the "source-target dealership"), located first at one place (the source site), then at another (the target site). Indeed, § 320.642(5) requires that the reopening dealership be the same dealership11 (if it is not a successor dealership12) for the exemption to apply.13 The bottom line is, if the source dealership and the target dealership are not the same dealership, then the exemption cannot apply. Id. Imagining the source-target dealership as a unity is difficult, however, because one of the chief characteristics that define any dealership is its location. (Other distinguishing features include, without limitation, the identity of the dealer and the line-make vehicles being offered for sale.) Indeed, most people would consider a dealership located at one place to be separate and distinct from a dealership located somewhere else, even if the two were owned and operated by the same dealer and authorized to sell the same line-make vehicles. Of course, location cannot be moved, which raises the question: How can the source dealership and the target dealership really be the same dealership? Without attempting to answer that question completely, it is clear that maintaining the unity of the source-target dealership requires minimally that the source-target dealership have an effective market presence——that is, be licensed to operate and open for business——at but one place at a time, either the source location or the target location. In other words, however this "coin" is ultimately defined, logically it must be, at any given moment, either "heads" up or "tails" up, not heads and tails simultaneously. Therefore, whatever else a true "relocation" entails, i.e. however that term and its cognates are ultimately defined, it can be said at a minimum that a true relocation is not complete until the source dealership disappears as such, having been turned into the target dealership. One more term before moving on: "backfill dealership" shall refer to a dealership that is or will be: (a) opened at a source site after the relocation from that site of the source- target dealership; (b) owned and operated by, or under the effective control of, the same dealer who owns and operates or effectively controls the source-target dealership, which dealership is now present in the marketplace solely as a target dealership; and (c) offering for sale the same line-make vehicles as the source-target dealership. In this case, the BMW dealership that Vista plans to open at 700-744 N. Federal Hwy would be a backfill dealership. Having formulated a vocabulary, the central disputes in this case can easily be identified. It should be readily apparent that an attempt to establish a backfill dealership calls into question the genuineness of the previous relocation of the source-target dealership from the source site to the target site. This is because the opening of a backfill dealership results in the market presence of two symbiotic dealerships——an outcome not obviously distinguishable from that which would obtain if, instead of relocating the source-target dealership, the dealer had simply opened an additional dealership to complement his existing dealership. Put another way, to continue with the earlier metaphor, the net result is the presence of two coins where before there was one. The question thus becomes whether these coins should be labeled, respectively, (a) backfill dealership and source-target dealership or (b) existing dealership and additional dealership. Incipient Policies BMW NA and Vista are the first distributor and dealer to attempt to execute an exempt relocation-backfill maneuver in Florida. In the course of responding to the issues raised by this novel use of Section 320.642(5), the Department has developed several policies that interpret this exemption as applied to the facts at hand. For purposes of discussion, the relevant incipient policies can be fairly described14 as follows: A dealership that is opened at a site contiguous to the source site from which a source dealership of the same line-make was relocated will be treated as a backfill dealership, provided the two dealerships are under common ownership or control. Establishing a backfill dealership does not necessarily defeat a prior claim of relocation-exemption; rather, under certain circumstances, a dealer can take advantage of the relocation-exemption and also establish a backfill dealership. A backfill dealership does not defeat a prior claim of relocation-exemption if the following requirements are met: There was a "relocation in fact" of the source dealership from the source site to the target site. A "relocation in fact" has occurred when, at a minimum, all of the following have happened: The source dealership's license was modified to show that dealership operations are now permitted only at the target site. Dealership operations at the source site completely stopped (i.e. the source dealership closed and did not reopen in the ordinary course of business). There was an actual, physical move that entailed, but was not necessarily limited to, the relocation of inventory to the target site. Notice regarding the establishment of the backfill dealership was given to the Department after the "relocation in fact" had occurred. Dealership operations at the source site were not resumed (i.e. the backfill dealership did not open to the public for business) until after the protest period associated with the backfill dealership formally concluded and a license authorizing the backfill dealership was issued. Braman's Theory of the Case The linchpin of Braman's theory of the case is its contention that, for a relocation to fall within the Section 320.642(5) exemption, the distributor and the dealer claiming the exemption must have formed, as of the date of notifying the Department about the relocation, a specific intent regarding the dealer's future plans vis-à-vis the source site——or at least they must not have formed certain intentions relative thereto. Stating the requisite intention affirmatively, Braman suggests that the distributor and dealer must intend to "abandon" the source site, i.e. to leave the source site with the intention of never again establishing another dealership there of the same line-make as the source dealership. Alternatively, Braman argues that, at a minimum, the distributor and dealer must not have formed the intention of opening a backfill dealership. On the foregoing premise, Braman argues that BMW NA and Vista never intended for Vista to "relocate" its BMW dealership to 4401 W. Sample Rd within the strictures of Section 320.642(5), because they intended, alternatively, (a) for Vista's BMW dealership at N. Federal Hwy to remain open and never close; (b) for Vista's BMW dealership at N. Federal Hwy to open simultaneously with the opening of a BMW dealership at 4401 W. Sample Rd; or (c) for Vista's BMW dealership at N. Federal Hwy to open as soon as possible after the opening of a BMW dealership at 4401 W. Sample Rd. Braman asserts that the intentions of BMW NA and Vista render the BMW dealership at 4401 N. Federal Hwy ineligible for the relocation-exemption. Braman then goes a step farther, contending that BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice to the Department, which announced that Vista would relocate its BMW dealership from 700 N. Federal Hwy to 4401 W. Sample Rd, was false and even fraudulent. Proof of this alleged deception, according to Braman, reached the Department in May 2003 in the form of BMW NA's notice regarding the proposal to establish Vista's backfill dealership at 744 N. Federal Hwy. Braman claims that when the Department received Braman's May 5, 2003, notice, it should immediately have published a notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly that Vista's BMW dealership at 4401 W. Sample Rd was subject to protest. Although Braman has expended a great deal of effort trying to depict BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice as "false" and accusing BMW NA and Vista of intentionally deceiving the Department regarding their "true" plans, Braman's "deception theory" is subordinate to its contention that the relocation- exemption can only be claimed properly by distributors and dealers having a specific intent. That Braman's "deception theory" is dependent on its "specific intent theory" is shown by observing that if the specific intent theory were legally correct, and if further (as Braman asserts) BMW NA and Vista did not in fact have the requisite specific intent, then it would be irrelevant whether BMW NA and Vista also sought to deceive the Department15, for their intentions regarding 700-744 N. Federal Hwy would render Section 320.642(5) inapplicable, no matter what.16 On the other hand, if Braman were wrong concerning the specific intent requirement it advocates, then BMW NA's notice to the Department regarding the relocation of Vista's BMW dealership could not have been false in the way Braman contends it was. In short, then, Braman effectively has staked its case on the proposition that the relocation-exemption requires a specific intent. The deception theory lends little, if any, support to Braman's primary position and therefore will not be given further attention herein. That said, Braman's "specific intent theory" logically concedes an important point, by necessary implication, which is that backfill dealerships do not necessarily defeat prior assertions of the relocation-exemption. This is because if the establishment of a backfill dealership always undid the dealer's previous reliance on the relocation-exemption, thereby exposing his target dealership to protest, then the dealer's intentions regarding the source site, whatever they might have been, would never be relevant. Simply put, to urge explicitly (as Braman does) that having the "wrong" intentions regarding the source site makes Section 320.642(5) inapplicable is to admit implicitly that harboring the "right" intentions regarding the source site keeps alive the possibility that the dealer can take advantage of the relocation-exemption and also establish a backfill dealership some day. Consequently, having put all of its eggs in the specific intent basket, Braman is not in a position to disagree with the Department's Incipient Policy "B" as described above.17 Indeed, while Braman has taken issue broadly with most of the Department's incipient policies, its only promising lines of attack proceed along two fronts. One is a somewhat secondary thrust: Braman complains that the Department's incipient policies permit the opening of a backfill dealership within 12 months after the closure of the source dealership, which opening (Braman argues) would itself be exempt from protest under Section 320.642(5). Thus, Braman asserts that the Department's Incipient Policy "C(3)," which purports to make backfill dealerships "protestable," contravenes the plain statutory language. With regard to this point, while the possibility certainly exists, it is not altogether clear that the Department would permit a backfill dealership to open within 12 months after the closure of a source dealership, because the Department has not been confronted with such a scenario. Moreover, there is no reasonable possibility that Vista will open a BMW dealership at 700-744 N. Federal Hwy on or before October 7, 2004. Therefore, although Braman has raised an interesting question about Incipient Policy "C(3)," which the undersigned will revisit below, the issue cannot be outcome determinative, because it addresses a contingency that has not occurred (and will not occur) in this case. Braman's real dispute with the Department, when all is said and done, is that the Department has chosen not to impose the specific intent requirement that Braman champions. Indeed, with the possible exception of some modifications to Incipient Policy "C(3)" to correct for the potential problem just identified, Braman could not object to the Department's incipient policies if they included a "C(1)(d)" as follows: As of the date the Department was notified about the relocation, the distributor and the dealer who claimed the relocation- exemption either specifically intended for the dealer to leave the source site and never again open another dealership there of the same line-make as the source dealership or, alternatively, had no intentions of establishing a backfill dealership. The question whether Braman's specific intent theory holds thus becomes the threshold legal issue. If the answer were negative, then Braman cannot prevail here.18 If the answer were affirmative, it would then be necessary to make ultimate factual determinations regarding BMW NA and Vista's intentions concerning 700-744 N. Federal Hwy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order confirming that Vista's new BMW dealership at 4401 W. Sample Rd, having resulted from the relocation and reopening of Vista's former BMW dealership at 700 N. Federal Hwy, which reopening occurred within 12 months after the closure of the former dealership and at a location meeting the geographical requirements of Section 320.642(5)(b), Florida Statutes, cannot be considered an additional motor vehicle dealership subject to protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 10th day of September, 2004.
Conclusions This matter came on for determination by the Department upon submission of an Order Closing File by Daniel M. Kilbride, 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 Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Sunl Group, Inc. ‘and Action Motorsports to sell motorcycles manufactured by Astronautical Bashan Motorcycle Manufacture Co. Ltd. (BASH) at 11485 South Cleveland Avenue, Suite 1, Fort Myers (Lee County), Florida 33907. DONE AND ORDERED this a — day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 'ARL A. FORD, Direct6r 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 ZB day of July, 2009. 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. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Kyle Lee Ride Green, Inc. 5686 Youngquist Road #113 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Mei Zhou Sunl Group, Inc. ~ 8551 Ester Boulevard Irving, Texas 75063 Howard Chappell, Esquire Law Offices of Howard Chappell 1514 Cumberland Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ; Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Daniel M. Kilbride Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator - Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SUNL GROUP, INC., AND ACTION MOTORSPORTS, Petitioners, RIDE GREEN, INC., ) ) ) ) ) vs. ) Case No. 08-5720 ) ) ) Respondent. ) )
The Issue Whether Petitioner has standing under section 320.642, Florida Statutes, to file a petition with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) protesting the establishment of an additional dealership at a proposed location.
Findings Of Fact As defined in section 320.60(11)(a), Recovery Racing is an existing motor vehicle dealer, and is a party to a Maserati franchise agreement. Recovery Racing sells Maserati vehicles from a licensed franchise located at 5750 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As defined in section 320.60(8), Maserati is a licensee. Rick Case is the additional Maserati dealer that Maserati seeks to establish at 3500 Weston Road, Davie, Florida (proposed location). The Proposed Location is approximately 18 miles from Recovery Racing’s dealership located at 5750 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Recovery Racing is not within a radius of 12.5 miles of the proposed Rick Case location; accordingly, Recovery Racing is not claiming standing pursuant to section 320.642(3)(b)1. Recovery Racing relies on section 320.642(3)(b)2., to establish standing. Mr. Stockton, the expert presented by Recovery Racing, opined that Recovery Racing has standing to protest because it made more than 25 percent of its retail sales to persons with registered household addresses within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed location. Mr. Stockton’s opinion is based on his assumption that “registered household address,” as set forth in section 320.642(3)(b)2., means the address where the persons who use or drive the vehicle reside, regardless of the household addresses where the purchased vehicles are registered. Mr. Stockton explained that in making his calculation, he did not rely on vehicle registration data; rather, he relied on the dealership sales files for each sale, and information provided to him by Mr. Hayim, the general manager for Recovery Racing. Mr. Stockton’s opinion on standing was also based on his definition of “retail sales” as set forth in section 320.642(3)(b)2. According to Mr. Stockton, sales to businesses are included as retail sales where the business is an “instrument” of the transaction, and the person using the car is a “beneficiary.” In contrast, he explained that a sale to a business is excluded as a retail sale when the business is the “beneficiary” of the transaction. Turning to the time periods referenced in section 320.642(3)(b)2., Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-7.004(9) sets forth the manner in which the 36-month period within which the 12-month period for standing is calculated. The period ends on the last day of the month preceding the month in which notice is published, running through the end of the month prior to the date of publication of the notice. Given the date of the notice in this case, which is May 12, 2014, the relevant period in the instant case ends on April 30, 2014, and begins 36 months before that date on May 1, 2011. In calculating the time periods detailed in section 320.642(3)(b)2., Mr. Stockton was unaware of the Florida Administrative Code rule addressing the calculation of the 12-month period within a 36-month period. Accordingly, he began and ended his calculations mid-month, on May 19, 2011. He explained that there were approximately 730 possible 12-month periods to review; each one starting on a different day, going forward 12 months. Mr. Stockton’s method of reviewing the statutory time periods does not comply with the standards set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. In making a standing calculation, the automotive industry calculates the percentage using the following fraction: the denominator is the total number of retail sales, and the numerator reflects the number of retail sales that are within the geographic radius required by the statute (referred to as “the ring”). The records attached to Mr. Stockton’s reports, which are tabs 6 through 128 (although not consecutively numbered) in Exhibit 1, contain the documents that Mr. Stockton relied upon in making his standing calculation. Mr. Stockton calculated the fraction at least two different times; both calculations were presented to the undersigned. The first calculations were reported as follows: Date range Sales within ring Nationwide sales Percent within ring 5/19/2011-5/18/2012 32 127 25.20% 5/20/2011-5/19/2012 32 127 25.20% 5/21/2011-5/20/2012 32 127 25.20% 5/22/2011-5/21/2012 32 126 25.40% 5/23/2011-5/22/2012 33 127 25.98% Mr. Stockton’s revised calculations, after receiving more information about some of the sales, were reported as follows: Date range Sales within ring Nationwide sales Percent within ring 5/19/2011-5/18/2012 34 127 26.77% 5/20/2011-5/19/2012 34 127 26.77% 5/21/2011-5/20/2012 34 127 26.77% 5/22/2011-5/21/2012 34 126 26.98% 5/23/2011-5/22/2012 35 127 27.56% Sixteen of the sales included in the “sales within ring” (using either of the two reports detailed above) are not supported by any vehicle registration data. Those 16 sales are, as enumerated by the tabs attached to Mr. Stockton’s report, the following: 18, 19, 24, 34, 37, 43, 51, 61, 68, 76, 109, 112, 117, 118, 119, and 122. Interestingly, for two of the sales, tab 37 and tab 43, Mr. Stockton knew that the cars were registered in New Hampshire and Orlando, Florida, respectively. He included them, however, in the sales within the ring because he had knowledge that the vehicles were being used by persons with household addresses within the ring. Mr. Stockton’s method of reviewing the “end user” of a vehicle sale is wholly dependent on documents that vary from sales file to sales file and on information given to him by the general manager of the dealership. This methodology is subjective and easily manipulated by an interested party. Mr. Stockton also included two sales, tabs 24 and 122, that were sold to non-retail buyers, who purchase the vehicle wholesale. He included both because he had acquired information that the “end users” of the vehicles were persons with household addresses within the ring. Maserati’s expert, Mr. Farhat, opined that Recovery Racing did not have standing to protest because Recovery Racing did not meet the 25 percent requirement of retail sales within the 12.5 mile radius, within the time period mandated by the statute. Mr. Farhat’s calculations were based on the assumption that the statutory term “registered household addresses” means the household addresses to which vehicles are registered with the Department. Given this assumption, he reviewed the vehicle registration data for each retail sale. Mr. Farhat obtained the data from two authoritative sources in the automotive industry: Experian and IHS. Both of these entities obtain their vehicle registration data from state departments of motor vehicles. Mr. Farhat defined the term “retail sale” as sales to individuals, and to businesses that purchase less than 10 vehicles in a year. He explained that this definition is used industry-wide. Mr. Farhat ultimately opined that Recovery Racing never got close to reaching the 25 percent requirement, in any of the potential rolling 12-month periods in the preceding 36- months. Mr. Farhat’s testimony as to the definition of “registered household addresses” is found credible, as it gives meaning to all of the language contained in the statute. Mr. Stockton’s definition is not supported by the statutory language, is unreliable, subject to manipulation, fails to give any meaning to the word “registered” as used in the statute, and inserts the term “end user” into the statute. Mr. Farhat’s testimony as to the definition of “retail sales” is also found credible, as it is an objective standard used by the automotive industry. Mr. Stockton’s definition of “retail sales” is suspect in that it requires investigation into whether a business is a “beneficiary” or an “instrument”—-again, information that is highly subjective and easily manipulated. The plain meaning of the words “registered household addresses,” as used in section 320.642(3)(b)2., is the household address to which a vehicle is registered with the Department. Given that 16 of the sales included in the ring by Mr. Stockton had no vehicle registration data, they cannot be included in the numerator. Two of those 16 sales were also not retail sales, as defined by the automotive industry. Recovery Racing failed to meet its burden of proving that it has standing to protest the proposed Rick Case dealership location, as it did not establish that 25 percent of its retail sales, sold during the defined statutory timeframe, were within the 12.5 mile radius set forth in section 320.642(3)(b)2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Recovery Racing’s protest of the proposed establishment of an additional dealer for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough, LLP Suite 202 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Robert E. Sickles, Esquire Hinshaw and Culbertson, LLP Suite 500 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Elias C. Schwartz, Esquire Schwartz and Englander, P.A. 1900 Glades Road, Suite 102 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 (eServed) Robert D. Cultice, Esquire Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door, LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (eServed) Richard N. Sox, Esquire Jason T. Allen, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Terry L. Rhodes, Executive Director Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-443 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 (eServed) Steve Hurm, General Counsel Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a motor vehicle dealer license filed by Lambretta International, LLC, and Retro Unlimited, Inc., should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the application for establishment of the motor vehicle dealer franchise at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Caroline Khurana Lambretta International, LLC 14339 Lake City Way Northeast Seattle, Washington 98125 Chris Densmore Scooter Escapes, LLC, d/b/a Scooter Escapes 1450 1st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Edward G. Dreyer, III Retro Unlimited, Inc. 3200 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' notice of intent to establish a supplemental motor vehicle dealership was effective to commence the statutory protest period, which must be completed as a necessary condition of licensure.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated September 13, 2002, Petitioner BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") notified Respondent Department Of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the "Department") that Petitioner Pompano Imports, Inc., d/b/a Vista Motors ("Vista"), intended to relocate its dealership, where BMW cars and light trucks were being sold and serviced, from 700 North Federal Highway in Pompano Beach ("Source Site") to 4401 West Sample Road in Coconut Creek ("Target Site").1 BMW NA and Vista took the position that, pursuant to Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes,2 the proposed reopening of the "relocatee-dealership"3 at the Target Site should not be considered subject to competing dealers' administrative protests. Pursuant to Section 320.642(1)(d), Florida Statutes, the Department caused BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to be published in the September 27, 2002, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. On September 27, 2002, also in accordance with Section 320.642(1)(d), the Department mailed copies of BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to all existing BMW passenger car dealers and BMW light truck dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. Within two weeks, however, the Department mailed letters to these same dealers explaining that the proposed reopening of Vista's relocatee- dealership at the Target Site would not be a "protestable" event after all. A little more than seven months later, by letter dated May 5, 2003, BMW NA notified the Department that Vista planned to establish an additional or "supplemental" dealership for selling and servicing BMW cars and light trucks at 744 North Federal Highway in Pompano Beach (the "Supplemental Site"), a parcel which is contiguous to the Source Site where the relocatee-dealership then remained open for business, the previously announced relocation having not yet taken place. As required by statute, the Department not only caused a notice to be published in the May 16, 2003, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly regarding this putative supplemental dealership, but also it mailed copies of BMW NA's May 5, 2003, notice to all existing BMW passenger car dealers and BMW light truck dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. No dealer timely protested Vista's intended opening of a supplemental dealership at the Supplemental Site. Generally speaking, after the Department has received notice from a licensee or applicant regarding the latter's intent either to establish an additional dealership or to relocate an existing dealership, and after such notice has been duly published in accordance with Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, the Department routinely enters a final order authorizing the issuance of a license for the proposed additional or relocated dealership upon the applicant's satisfaction of all other requirements for licensure, unless a timely protest is filed, in which case final agency action must be taken pursuant to Chapter 120.4 In this case, however, by letter dated July 10, 2003, the Department informed BMW NA and Vista of its decision that because the putative relocatee- dealership was still doing business at the Source Site, and because the Supplemental Site was immediately adjacent to the Source Site, the proposed supplemental dealership would be deemed an "expansion" of the putative relocatee-dealership, as opposed to an "additional" dealership. Based on this determination, the Department concluded in its July 10, 2003, correspondence that: (1) a license would not be issued for the expansion of Vista's dealership into the Supplemental Site; (2) the opening of the dealership that Vista proposed to establish at the Target Site, which would come into being as the putative relocatee-dealership expanded, could not be considered exempt from protest, for no "relocation" would be occurring; and (3) notice and an opportunity to protest would need to be provided with respect to the Target Site before a license for an additional dealership at that location could be issued. BMW NA and Vista each requested a hearing to challenge the Department's findings and conclusions, initiating, respectively, DOAH Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970. These cases were subsequently consolidated. On September 30, 2003, before the final hearing in the consolidated proceeding, the Department, BMW NA, and Vista entered into a settlement agreement. Upon being advised of the settlement, the presiding administrative law judge (not the undersigned) closed DOAH's files in Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970 and relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. Pursuant to the referenced settlement agreement, the Department, on October 7, 2003, approved Vista's application to relocate its BMW passenger car and BMW light truck dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site, as had been proposed in the September 13, 2002, notice of relocation. Vista's motor vehicle dealer license was, accordingly, modified to permit Vista to conduct dealership activities with regard to BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Target Site. This modification effectively "de-licensed" Vista as a BMW dealer at the Source Site. On October 7, 2003, Vista stopped selling and servicing BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Source Site. (Vista continued to operate a preexisting, separately licensed Volkswagen dealership at the Source Site.) On October 8, 2003, Vista started selling and servicing BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Target Site. (Vista continued to operate a preexisting, separately licensed MINI dealership at the Target Site.) Also pursuant to the settlement agreement referenced above, the Department notified BMW NA and Vista, by letter dated October 15, 2003, of the following relevant findings:5 Pursuant to Rule 15C-7.004(3)(d)2, Florida Administrative Code, the Department views [Vista's] proposed additional motor vehicle BMW dealership . . . at [the Supplemental Site] as an expansion of Vista Motors' existing licensed BMW dealership at [the Source Site.] Therefore, the [proposed project at the Supplemental Site] . . . , [being] in fact merely an expansion of Vista Motors' existing location [i.e. the Source Site], [is] not [an additional BMW dealership] subject to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. [T]hus BMW is essentially intending to remain open at its existing . . . location [meaning, apparently, the Source Site] at the same time it is relocating to [the Target Site]. Based on the foregoing findings, the Department concluded as follows:6 [The exemption from protest afforded under Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes, cannot apply where the putative relocatee- dealership of] Vista Motors . . . remain[s] open at the [Source Site] as a franchise BMW dealer . . . [while] at the same time [Vista] move[s] [the putative relocatee- dealership] to the [Target Site]. Therefore, Vista may not be issued a license as a franchise BMW dealer at the [Supplemental Site], until it relocates to [the Target Site] and thereafter publishes a new notification of an additional dealership for the [Supplemental Site], and those proceedings, if any, are concluded in favor of the additional dealership. (Emphasis added.) At first blush, the October 15, 2003, notice seems curiously oblivious to the fact that the Department had already approved Vista's relocation to the Target Site and modified Vista's license accordingly. Indeed, there appears to be some tension between the "facts" found in the notice and the actual facts on the ground. For example, while the notice refers to Vista's existing licensed BMW dealership at the Source Site, the undisputed fact is that Vista was not licensed to operate a BMW dealership at the Source Site as of October 7, 2003. Thus, if the Department believed, as a literal reading of the notice suggests, that Vista's intent on October 15, 2003, was to expand an existing BMW dealership at the Source Site, then it would be reasonable to wonder why the Department did not conclude that Vista was operating at the Source Site without a license. Conclusion 1 seems likewise to be at odds with what had transpired in fact. On the one hand, the Department concludes that Vista has remained open at the Source Site, which it cannot do and also claim, as it had done, the Section 320.642(5) exemption. Yet, on the other hand, the Department had, in fact, previously authorized Vista to operate a BMW dealership at the Target Site under the auspices of the very exemption that the October 15, 2003, notice concludes cannot apply because Vista is still open (according to the "findings") at the Source Site. To properly understand the October 15, 2003, notice, it is necessary to focus on the word "thereafter" in Conclusion 2(b). Clearly, the timing of the "new notification" is critical. The Department is saying that, where a dealer has previously given notice of its intent to relocate an existing dealership, taking advantage of Section 320.642(5) to exempt the reopening of such relocatee-dealership at the target site, if the dealer now wants to establish a "supplemental" dealership at the source site7 (hereafter, such a dealership will be called a "backfill dealership"8) then the relocatee-dealership must truly be relocated before effective notice of the proposed backfill dealership may be published. Under this policy,9 hereafter called the "Exempt Relocation/Backfill Policy," it is appropriate for the Department, in determining retrospectively10 whether the notice of the proposed "supplemental" dealership was effective, to look at the facts as of the date of the notice. In this case, the subject notice was given to the Department on May 5, 2003, and published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 16, 2003. With these points in mind, it becomes apparent that the "findings" in the October 15, 2003, notice, which seem inconsistent with the facts on the ground, actually refer to the state of affairs in May 2003. Once the findings in the October 15, 2003, notice are understood as being retrospective in nature, the notice begins to make sense. What the Department found was that Vista had not relocated its BMW dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site as of May 5, 2003, when notice of the proposed backfill dealership was furnished to the Department. As a result, because Vista had previously sought the protection of Section 320.642(5) for the reopening of its relocatee-dealership, the May 5, 2003, notice respecting the backfill dealership was premature and ineffective. To remedy the problem of premature notice, the Department would afford Vista a second chance to give effective notice in the proper sequence, after the relocation of its BMW dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site had taken place.11 It is important to note that, in the October 15, 2003, notice, the Department neither needed to make nor made a finding, one way or the other, as to whether Vista's putative relocatee-dealership has, in fact, moved from the Source Site to the Target Site.12 Thus, such a determination should not be made in and through this proceeding, but, rather, by the Department (preliminarily) either (a) at the time BMW NA gives notice to the Department, again, of the proposed backfill dealership at Supplemental Site or (b) after publication of such notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly but before a license for the proposed backfill dealership is issued or denied.13 It is also not necessary, and indeed would be inappropriate, to determine in this case what action, if any, the Department should take if it subsequently determines that Vista's putative relocatee- dealership has not in fact relocated from the Source Site to the Target Site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order providing that Vista shall be issued a license to operate a BMW dealership at 744 North Federal Highway only if: (a) prior to the time notice is given to the Department pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, regarding the proposed dealership, Vista has actually relocated the dealership that existed at 700 North Federal Highway to 4401 West Sample Road in Coconut Creek; any protest filed against the proposed dealership is resolved in Petitioners' favor; and (c) all other legal requirements for licensure are met. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of April, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners should be permitted to establish an additional dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Company, Ltd. ("ZHEJ").
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On April 17, 2009, the Florida Administrative Weekly published a notice that JCL International intended to allow the establishment of Extreme Motor Sales as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by ZHEJ at the Orange Blossom Trail location. The notice also stated that the "new point" location for the proposed dealership is in a "county of more than 300,000 population, according to the latest population estimates of the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research." Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of motorcycles manufactured by ZHEJ. Respondent's dealership is located at 306 West Main Street in Apopka, Florida. The driving distance between Respondent's dealership and the location of the new dealership that JCL International proposes to establish is 3.89 miles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issue a final order denying Petitioners, Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC, and Extreme Motor Sales, approval to establish a new ZHEJ motorcycle dealership at 1918 South Orange Blossom Trail, Apopka, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether the application of Peace Industry Group (Peace) and Bayside Auto Sales, Inc. (Bayside) to establish an additional franchised dealership for the sale of Astronautical Bashan motorcycles to be located at Bayside Auto Sales, 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Bay County, Florida, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Peace is a licensed distributor of motor vehicles in Florida and is authorized to sell motor vehicles to its dealers in Florida. Petitioner Bayside is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and is located at 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Respondent Moto is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and an existing Astronautical Bashan dealer located at 12202 Hutchison Blvd Suite 72, Panama City Beach, Florida. Currently, Moto sells the product line of Peace, including the Astronautical Bashan product line. Additionally, Moto has a franchise agreement with Peace. The agreement establishes a franchise territory with a 25-mile radius around Moto’s location. Petitioner Peace proposes to establish Bayside as a dealership for the sale of Astronautical Bashan motorcycles. The proposed dealership would be within six miles of Moto’s dealership. The two dealerships are located in Bay County and are separated by the Hathaway Bridge. Both draw customers from Bay County, with at least 20 percent of Moto’s customers located within 20 miles of Moto’s location. There was no consumer data or analysis of sales in the motorcycle industry offered into evidence. However, Moto’s franchise agreement with Peace establishes a market area of at least a 25-mile radius from Moto’s location. Bayside clearly is located within Moto’s market area. There was no evidence which demonstrated Peace’s market share in the motorcycle market. There was no evidence presented analyzing the motorcycle market in the Panama City area. Likewise, there was no evidence presented regarding anticipated growth in the market area. This type of evidence is generally presented by the distributor or manufacturer of the product. As indicated, Peace did not appear at the hearing. Given this lack of evidence, the market share for Peace or Astronautical Bashan motorcycles cannot be established. Moreover, a determination that the establishment of a second dealership in the Panama City territory is warranted must be based on the economic and marketing conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the territory. Given this lack of evidence, Petitioners failed to establish that Peace was underrepresented in the Panama City/Bay county area. Since there is no evidence to support the establishment of a second dealership, Petitioners’ application to establish such a dealership should be denied.
Recommendation Based upon 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 establishment of Peace's dealership at Bayside, 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Larry Bradberry Bayside Auto Sales, Inc. 1301 Harrison Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Wayne Wooten Moto Import Distributors, LLC 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 Lily Ji Peace Industry Group, Inc. 6600-B Jimmy Carter Boulevard Norcross, Georgia 30071 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Respondent, Maserati North America, Inc.’s ("MNA"), proposed 2017 Commercial Policy Program ("2017 Program") is a modification of the franchise agreement between MNA and Petitioner, New Country Motor Cars of Palm Beach, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Palm Beach ("Palm Beach"), or Petitioner Recovery Racing, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Ft. Lauderdale ("Fort Lauderdale"); and, if so, whether it is fair and not prohibited by section 320.641(3), Florida Statutes (2016). Whether MNA’s proposed modifications to the Existing Franchise Agreements with Petitioners are fair and not prohibited under section 320.641(3).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the Pre-hearing Stipulation of the parties and the record as a whole, the following relevant and material Findings of Fact are made2/:
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: (1) DISMISSING Petitioners’ claims regarding MNA’s 2017 Commercial Policy Bonus Program; and (2) GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, Petitioners’ claims regarding modifications in the Proposed New Agreement, as set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether General Motors' decision not to renew its franchise agreement with Gallman Pontiac was "unfair" as the term is defined by Section 320.641(3), Florida statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background On or about October 28, 1988, (general Motors Corporation, Pontiac Division (General Motors) notified it franchisee, Bill Gallman Pontiac, GMC Truck, Inc. (Gallman Pontiac), a licensed motor vehicle dealer in the State of Florida, of its election not to renew the franchise agreement, effective ninety days from the date of the delivery of the notice of its decision. Because the franchise agreement was scheduled to expire on November 20, 1988, Bill Gallman would have the option to void the nonrenewal due to General Motor's failure to notify the motor vehicle dealer ninety days in advance of the proposed nonrenewal. To avoid this result and to comply with the franchise agreement, General Motors informed the dealer in the same notification that the current agreement was being extended for the same ninety day period in which the dealer had been given notice of the proposed nonrenewal. General Motors' extension of the term of the franchise agreement was a unilateral proposed novation that was accepted by Gallman Pontiac when he relied upon the modification and continued to do business under the novation. Gallman Pontiac's acceptance of the novation is clearly demonstrated by the timing of the verified complaint in this proceeding, which was filed on January 12, 1989. The specific reason stated by General Motors for its decision not to renew its franchise agreement beyond the ninety-day period was that Gallman Pontiac failed to fulfill its minimum sales performance responsibilities pursuant to its contractual obligations as set forth in the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement. Gallman Pontiac subsequently filed a verified complaint, pursuant to Section 320.641, Florida Statutes, to contest the proposed nonrenewal of the franchise agreement. The complaint alleges that the proposed nonrenewal is unfair and that the grounds asserted for the nonrenewal were factually untrue and/or legally insufficient for the intended purpose. The Mathematical Formula for Sales Effectiveness The manufacturer's primary purpose for entering into a franchise agreement with a dealer is to have its automobiles sold. To determine whether a dealer is meeting its responsibilities in this regard, the franchise agreement contains a mathematical formula which is used to evaluate the sales performance of all dealers who sell Pontiacs. Pursuant to the formula, which is expressed in the agreement and tide annual sales performance evaluation form, a dealer's sales ratio and registration ratio must be calculated. A dealer's sales ratio is determined by dividing the dealer's actual unit sales of new motor vehicles, wherever registered, by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. A dealer's registration ratio is determined by dividing new motor vehicle unit registrations by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. After these ratios are recorded, the dealer's sales and registration ratios are compared to zone and national registration ratio levels to determine sales and registration effectiveness. If the individual dealer's sales and registration performances reach a comparative level of 85 percent effectiveness to the zone and national levels, the dealer's performance is considered effective by General Motors. When the comparisons were made in this case, the dealer's sales effectiveness was 53.6 percent in 1987 and 68.5 percent in 1988. Registration effectiveness was 56.5 percent in 1987 and 74.1 percent in 1988. These levels of performance do not meet the minimum levels required by the franchise agreement. Other Considerations Under the Agreement In addition to the mathematical formula, the franchise agreement states that General Motors will consider other relevant factors in its sales evaluation, including the following factors: the trend over a reasonable period of time of dealer's sales performance; the manner in which dealer has conducted the sales operations, including advertising, sales promotion and treatment of customers; sales to fleet customers if they have affected registrations; the manner in which dealer has submitted orders for new motor vehicles to the Pontiac Division; the availability of new motor vehicles to dealer; and significant local conditions that may have directly affected dealer's performance. If the mathematical formulas regarding sales and registration effectiveness set forth in the franchise agreement were the sole measure used to determine Gallman Pontiac's sales performance through January 1989, it is clear that the dealer was not meeting its contractual obligations to General Motors in this area of responsibility. However, under the terms of the agreement, General Motors must look to other relevant factors that may have directly affected dealer's performance before a final determination can be made regarding an individual dealer's sales effectiveness. Contrary to the terms of the agreement, the annual evaluation forms show that Gallman Pontiac's performance was evaluated on retail sales only. The other relevant factors in the franchise agreement were not reviewed before the decision not to renew the franchise agreement was made. Other Relative Factors in the Agreement Which Should Have Been Considered in the Dealers Evaluation When the trend of the Gallman Pontiac's sales performance is reviewed, the evidence shows that Gallman Pontiac's sales performance over the life of the franchise agreement has improved relative to market growth by a small percentage (7.51%). This slight upward trend does not demonstrate an effective performance as the sales were below an acceptable standard before the increase in sales, and the improvement barely exceeded the local market growth. The time period over which the trend evaluation occurred is reasonable in this case because both parties agreed to a two-year term in the franchise agreement, which was subject to an overall evaluation prior to a renewal of the agreement. Although there was opinion testimony from a former sales manager from the dealership that Gaillman Pontiac did not order sufficient quantities and mix of vehicles, and imprudently focused the advertising towards the limited, younger group of buyers in Naples, this testimony was not found to be credible by the Hearing Officer. All of the other evidence presented by both sides regarding the manner in which the dealer conducted sales operations demonstrates that Gallman Pontiac met or exceeded his contractual obligations in this area of responsibility. Sales to fleet customers did not affect registrations in 1988. The dealer chose not to compete in the fleet market because the later resale of these vehicles interferes with the sale of new vehicles at this dealership. The manner in which the dealer submitted orders to the Pontiac Division was not criticized by General Motors. The dealer's procedures were continuously reviewed and evaluated through the Dealer Assistance Program. There was no showing that the dealer's ordering procedures directly affected its sales performance. The allocation procedures were applied to Gallman Pontiac in the same manner they were applied to other dealers. The evidence did not show that imprudent selections were made by the dealer in the ordering process, nor was it sufficiently established that manufacturer delays or the unavailability of certain products interfered with the dealer's sales in Naples. A significant local condition that may have directly affected the dealer's sales performance was the lack of receptivity in the Naples market area for linemakes in the class of automobiles offered by Pontiac. Actual sales performance data for all new car registrations in the area show that the Naples market prefers to purchase automobiles from the high group of automobiles such as Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, Mercedes Benz, and Porsche. Pontiac does not have a linemake designed to compete in this market segment. Application of the Other Relevant Factors To The Decision Not To Renew Because the franchise agreement and the annual sales evaluation form have not made provisions for any adjustments to the original statistical formula based upon the additional considerations mentioned in paragraphs 9-13, these factors are to be considered independently from the initial mathematical calculation. The purpose of the review of these factors is to determine if the statistical analysis is a reliable indicator of the sales performance of the dealer who is being evaluated before General Motors makes its final decision regarding termination. There has been no showing that General Motors ever used the additional considerations for any other purpose in its course of dealings with other dealers in the past or that any other interpretation has been given to these factors. In this case, when the additional relevant factors are reviewed in addition to the ineffective sales and registration performance statistics, the mathematical formula continues to be a reliable indicator that the sales performance at the Gallman Pontiac dealership does not meet required standards. The additional considerations set forth in the franchise agreement which are relevant to this case, do not seriously undermine the fairness of the application of the initial mathematical calculation to the sales performance of Gallman Pontiac. While the local market's lack of receptivity directly affects Gallman Pontiac's performance, the statistical formula takes this into account to a large degree when a dealer is required to meet eighty-five percent of the zone or national average to demonstrate minimum performance. If yet another mathematical formula was created to give additional weight to this local condition beyond the provision in the minimum standards formula, the manufacturer could be harmed by a individual dealer's lack of market penetration efforts. Because it is difficult to determine the primary cause and effect of poor market penetration in a specific area, the statistical formula is generally fair to both sides in most situations. It does not unfairly accuse either the dealer or the manufacturer as being responsible for the lack of sales. One indicator of the fairness involved in the application of the formula as designed can be found in Mr. Anderson's comparative analysis of the Naples automobile market and the Sarasota market. Mr. Anderson is the expert in automobile marketing analysis presented by General Motors. This analysis refutes the opinion of Dr. Ostlund, the expert presented by Gallman Pontiac during the hearing regarding automobile marketing analysis. It is Dr. Ostlund's opinion that Naples is a unique market in which the usual statistical formula becomes unfair if it is applied to all registrations in the Dealer's Area of Responsibility. Based upon this analysis, Dr. Ostlund suggests that a weighted average be applied in the standard formula to all of the sales made by Gallman Pontiac during the franchise period. However, even if this were done, Gallman Pontiac's performance would have been 84.7 percent, which is still below the required standard of 85 percent. Contrary to Dr. Ostlund's analysis, the Naples-Sarasota comparison conducted by Mr. Anderson demonstrates that Pontiac can compete in a high income area with similar demographics to Naples within the same zone along the same Florida coast. Therefore, the usual statistical formula remains a reliable indicator of the sales effectiveness of a Pontiac dealer in Naples, Florida, and should be applied without any further weighting of averages in the statistical analysis required by the franchise agreement. Application of Additional Factors Relevant to the Decision Not to Renew Pursuant to Statute A nonrenewal of the franchise agreement is clearly permitted by the franchise agreement. The nonrenewal has been undertaken in good faith and good cause. The manufacturer has continuously encouraged the dealer to meet sales performance standards and has worked with Gallman Pontiac in an effort to achieve this goal within the time frame agreed to by the parties. Because franchise dealers are the major outlet the manufacturer has for the sale of new automobiles, it is essential that minimum levels of sales performance are achieved on a regular basis. Failure to meet the minimum sales performance over the term of this agreement by Gallman Pontiac is a material and substantial breach of the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order dismissing Gallman Pontiac's complaint with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0505 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3. Reject all but last sentence. Conclusions of Law. Accept the last sentence. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Reject that the dealer code problem can be attri- buted to the conduct of the manufacturer. Insufficient proof. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Reject the weighted average basis. See HO #14 and #15.. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Attempt to shift evidentiary burden. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Accept that additional factor's need to be considered. Rejected Dr. Ostlund's interpretation. See HO #9 through #15. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted, except for the last sentence which is an opinion or closing argument as opposed to a finding of fact. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted, except for Nissan. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Closing argument as opposed to finding of fact. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Conclusionary. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. See HO #10. Rejected. See HO #17. Rejected. See HO #15 and #17. Rejected. See HO #17. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO 415. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Redundant. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. Unreliable conclusion. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside the reasons given for nonrenewal. See HO #8. Rejected. Same reason as given in above. Rejected. Same reason as 49 and 50. Also contrary to fact. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Redundant and argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper argument. Rejected. The use of "sales reported" was allowed by the Hearing Officer at hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant in these proceedings. Rejected. Irrelevant and unreliable speculation. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Dr. Ostlund was very credible. Mr. Anderson's analysis, based upon y~he Sarasota- Naples comparison, which tended to refute the testimony of Dr. Ostlund, was given greater weight by the Hearing Officer. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Adams, Esquire Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Feaman, Adams, Harris, Department of Highway Fernandez & Deutch, P.A. Safety And Motor Vehicles Corporate Plaza, Fourth Floor Neil Kirkman Building 4700 N.W. Second Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 S. William Fuller, Jr., Esq. Vasilis C. Katsafanas, Esquire Fuller Johnson & Farrell Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Post Office Box 1739 Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler Tallahassee, Florida 32302 11 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motors Vehicles William J. Whalen, Esquire Department of Highway Office of General Counsel Safety and Motor Vehicles General Motors Corporation B439 Neil Kirkman Building New Center One Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232 Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire General Counsel S. Thomas Wienner, Esquire Departments of Highway Dykema Gossett Safety and Motor Vehicles 35th Floor Neil Kirklan Building 400 Renaissance Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Detroit, Michigan 48243
The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership filed by Universal Parts, Inc., d/b/a Partsforscooters.com, and Eco-Green Machine LLC, d/b/a Eco Green Machine (Petitioners), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has a franchise agreement to sell ZHNG motor vehicles, the line-make proposed to be sold by Eco Green Machine, LLC. The Respondent's dealership is located 4.1763 miles from Eco Green Machine, LLC’s, dealership. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent, or any other existing franchised dealer that registers new motor vehicle retail sales or leases of the ZHNG line-make within the community or territory of the proposed dealership, are not providing adequate representation of the ZHNG motor vehicles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying the application filed by the Petitioners to establish a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership for the sale of ZHNG motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Michelle R. Stanley Tropical Scooters, LLC 11610 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 33778 Ronnie Pownall ECO Green Machine, LLC, d/b/a ECO Green Machine 7000 Park Boulevard, Suite A Pinellas Park, Florida 33781 John Celestian Universal Parts, Inc. 2401 72nd Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
