Conclusions This matter came on for determination by the Department upon submission of an Order Closing File by P. Michael Ruff, 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 Flyscooter, LLC and Sunstate Powersports, LLC to sell motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 825 Mason Avenue, Daytona Beach (Volusia County), Florida 32117. DONE AND ORDERED this 4, of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. L A. FORD, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division ofPiotor Vehicles this — day of June, 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: Siegfried Kientoff Sunstate Powersports, LLC 825 Mason Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32117 David Levison Mega Powersports Corp. 390 North Beach Street Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Daniel Pak Flyscooters, Inc. 7307 Edgewater Drive, Building H Oakland, California 94621 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 P. Michael Ruff 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
The Issue The issue here presented concerns the attempted cancellation of the dealer franchise held by Ken's Kawasaki, Inc., petitioner, to sell Kawasaki motorcycles; specifically, Kawasaki Motors Corp, U.S.A., is taking action which would bring about the cancellation of Petitioner's motorcycle franchise. The alleged authority for considering the propriety of this action is as found in Section 320.641, Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ken's Kawasaki, lic., is a licensed-franchised Kawasaki motorcycle dealer in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Its dealer license is as authorized by the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles, and its franchise is as issued by the Respondent, Kawasaki Motors Corp, U.S.A. The dispute arises following action on January 31, 1980, when the Respondent sent a letter to the petitioner indicating that the Sales and Service Agreement (franchise) between the parties would be terminated effective April 30, 1980. The reason for this termination, as expressed in the correspondence directed to the Petitioner, was the belief held by the Respondent that the terms and conditions of the aforementioned Sales and Service Agreement, in particular paragraph 26, subsection 4, allowed for the termination or cancellation if there was a "discontinuance if the operation of dealer's business for a period of five (5) consecutive days unless such discontinuance is the result of a national disaster," which term was felt to have occurred. In response to this notification of cancellation, the Petitioner through one of its owners filed a verified complaint before the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles. This complaint was referred to the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, for consideration pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and the hearing was conducted on October 1 and 2, 1980, in Gainesville, Florida. (The procedural conduct of that hearing is as set forth in the transcript of the hearing.) The history of the Petitioner's franchise with Respondent began on February 3, 1978, with the acceptance by those parties of a Kawasaki 1978 Model Year Authorized Dealer's Sales and Service Agreement. This agreement terminated on September 30, 1978. This franchise was then extended to include the period December 31, 1981, in keeping with a Kawasaki Authorized Dealer's Sales and Service Agreement which was executed on January 29, 1979, and this is the agreement which was in effect at the time of the entry of the termination letter dated January 31, 1980. In the spring of 1979, Kenneth Meyers, a principal in the Petitioner's corporation, informed Jimmy Capps, who was the District Manager for the Respondent in the Georgia - and Florida area, that the Petitioner intended to sell Ken's Kawasaki, Inc., motorcycle business. In pursuit of its decision to sell, the petitioner listed its business with a number of real estate agencies in the Gainesville, Florida, area. Among those brokers was Sherwood Commercial Brokers and within that brokerage firm Walter E. Murphree, Jr., was a principal. In September, 1979, the brokerage firm referred George O. Hack to Meyers as a prospective purchaser of the Petitioner's motorcycle business. During the same month, on September 13, 1979, District Manager Capps visited the petitioner's business location to discuss with the Petitioner the fact that the dealership was "out of trust". ("Out of trust" means that the inventory of the dealership subject to a floor plan financing arrangement, has been sold without obtaining the title documents held as security for the floor plan financing and without accounting for the proceeds, and was therefore in violation of the financing arrangement.) In this instance, some of the motorcycles that had been financed by the Respondent through a floor plan had been sold "out of trust". Again in September, 1979, Meyers contacted Capps in Atlanta, Georgia, and indicated that George O. Hack, James W. Opp, and Walter E. Murphree, Jr., had shown an interest in acquiring the petitioner's business. This contact occurred subsequent to the entry between the Petitioner and Hack, Opp and Murphree as principals in Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation, Inc., into an arrangement referred to as a "Contract for Purchase and Sale of Assets" of the Petitioner corporation. None of the principals in Gainesville Motorcycle had held any position with the petitioner prior to this contract agreement. To effectuate the purpose of transferring the franchise from the petitioner to Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation, Inc., an arrangement was made by Hack to have a meeting with Capps to discuss the acceptance by the Respondent Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation, Inc., as franchisee of the Respondent. This meeting was held on October 22, 1979, in Gainesville, Florida. In the course of the meeting, a discussion was held on the requirements of the Respondent which must be met before the prospective franchisee would be accepted. This included the necessity to execute an application provided by the Respondent and the necessity to demonstrate the financial liquidity of Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation, Inc., in the person of its principals, by having them provide sound financial statements to the Respondent. One of the principals of Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation, Inc., Hack, owned and operated a Yamaha dealership in Gainesville, Florida, and this was a matter of which Capps either knew about prior to the meeting or learned of in the course of the meeting. In dealing with this subject as it related to the possibility that two motorcycle lines would be sold from one store, Capps made known that the acceptability of his circumstance would be dependent on the expectation by the Respondent that the Kawasaki line of product would be promoted on an equal basis with the existing Yamaha line. The idea of selling other manufacturers' motorcycles from the same store in which the Kawasaki product line was being offered is not foreign to the Respondent. The arrangement for the sale of two product lines from one store, to include the Kawasaki line, is acceptable, subject only to equal treatment in the promotion and sales of the Kawasaki product line when contrasted with that of the competing motorcycle product. Sometime in late October, 1979, Hack forwarded three financial statements for the principals Hack, Opp and Murphree to the Respondent in Atlanta, Georgia, together with an application for franchise in the name "Gainesvi1le Motorcycle Corporation". (This application of Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation was not presented as evidence in the hearing.) After receiving the material from the Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation and its principals, a decision was made by the Respondent not to approve their request for franchise and this decision was based upon the unacceptable financial position of those principals. The decision not to accept was communicated by letters addressed to those three principals, dated November 2, 1979. Subsequent to the receipt of the letters, Hack contacted the Respondent to ascertain if it was a possibility that other materials could be submitted in support of the application which would cause the Respondent to change its position on the franchise question. Hack was told that the Respondent would evaluate additional information if it was presented. On November 5, 1979, William A. Parsons, attorney representing the Petitioner, wrote to the Respondent to advise the Respondent that a closing on the pending sale of the Petitioner's business was scheduled for November 19, 1979, and in particular, requesting information from the Respondent. In response to Parsons's correspondence, the Respondent wrote to him on November 8, 1979, and advised Parsons that the sale of the franchise to Hack, Opp, Murphree or anyone in general had not been approved at that time. On November 8, 1979, another dealer visit was made by Capps to the petitioner's location. Further discussion was held between Capps and Meyers on the reason for disapproval of the Gainesville Motorcycle group's reguest for franchise, and Capps also determined in the course of that visit that some of the other floor plan financers of the petitioner, namely, ITT Diversified Credit, had removed one of the Petitioner's motorcycles and other items associated with the business; the effect of that action by ITT being to place the Petitioner in the position of no longer having available inventory in motorcycles to be sold. On November 17, 1979, the petitioner closed the doors to its Kawasaki motorcycle store for the purpose of taking inventory and had not reopened at the time of the hearing in this cause, October 1 and 2, 1980. At no time since the November 17, 1979, date has the Petitioner been engaged as a Kawasaki dealer. Notwithstanding the communication through the letter of November 8, 1979, from the Respondent to attorney Parsons indicating that the Hack, Opp, and Murphree group had not been approved as a Kawasaki franchise dealer, the parties to the purchase contract went to the closing scheduled for November 19, 1979, and on that date through a telephone call directed to officials within the Respondent corporation in Atlanta, Georgia, the parties to the closing were informed that the Hack group had not been approved as prospective franchisees to sell Kawasaki motorcycles, in substitution for the Petitioner corporation. In late November, 1979, Meyers contacted Gary Warren, who operated a Suzuki motorcycle dealership in Gainesville, Florida, to determine if Warren was interested in buying the petitioner's business. Warren thereafter determined to make an application to the Respondent to be granted the Kawasaki franchise for Gainesville, Florida, and agreed with Meyers that he would discuss the possibility of purchasing some of the merchandise items held by Ken's Kawasaki. On November 30, 1979, the Respondent forwarded the necessary material to Warren for Warren to make an application to be the Kawasaki franchise dealer. On December 1, 1979, Hack, Opp and Murphree entered into an arrangement with the Petitioner's landlord by which these parties agreed to lease, with the option to buy, those premises which were then occupied by the Petitioner, on the condition that the new group pay those arrearages in rent then owed by the Petitioner to the landlord. After reviewing Warren's application to become a Kawasaki dealer, Warren was informed that he had been approved. This approval was made known in late December, 1979. Also in late December, 1979, Hack informed Capps that the Yamaha dealership would be moved Petitioner's premises around Christmas of that year. Capps came to Gainesville on January 23, 1980, to enter into a mutual commitment agreement leading to the completion of arrangement s to establish Warren as the local Kawasaki dealer. (During that same trip, Capps went to the location of the Petitioner's dealership and discovered that the Yamaha dealership was in place at that location and there were no signs indicating that the Kawasaki dealership was still in operation at that locale. On that date, the mutual commitment agreement was executed and in provisions of that document was an agreement that Warren would buy his parts kit, accessory kit, and special tools from the Petitioner and that the dealership would operate as "Suzuki- Kawasaki of Gainesville". In pursuit of the agreement to purchase the parts kit, accessory kit and special tools from tie petitioner, discussion was held between Meyers and Warren. Prior to the discussion, Warren had been solicited by ITT Diversified Credit to buy certain products which they had removed from the Petitioner's business. In addition, the petitioner's landlord took Warren to a storage facility where some of the Petitioner's parts and accessories had been stored. Warren was concerned about the Petitioner's merchandise and for that reason asked Meyers to provide bills of sale and to conduct an inventory prior to any purchase by Warren. No bills of sale were forthcoming and Meyers having placed the value of the goods above their fair market value, Warren declined to purchase any of the items owned by the Petitioner in association with its Kawasaki dealership. After receipt of the January 31, 1980, letter or termination end prior to filing his protest to the the cancellation on April 26, 1980, meetings were held between Meyers and the principals of Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation on the subject of filing the protest and after discussion the decision was made to have Hack, on behalf of Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation, finance the protest with the expectation that the Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation would gain the award of the Kawasaki motorcycle franchise through the present action. It is not the intention of Kenneth Meyers to continue to operate the Kawasaki motorcycle business in keeping with his existing franchise issued by the Respondent and Meyers, in making this statement, is authorized to speak for the Petitioner. At present, Kawasaki motorcycles are not being sold from any Kawasaki dealership located in Gainesville, Florida, and this has been the case since November 17, 1979. This lack of sales has not been the result of the Respondent failing to deliver products to the Petitioner. There was no showing in the course of the hearing that the Respondent failed to fairly evaluate the applications of Gainesville Motorcycle Corporation and Gary Warren, prior to determining to accept Warren as the replacement dealer for the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the full consideration of the facts found therein and the Conclusions of Law reached it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Ken's Kawaski, Inc.'s complaint for unfair cancellation of its dealer franchise agreement be DISMISSED and the cancellation of the Petitioner's franchise agreement with Respondent, Kawasaki Motors Corp, U.S.A., be UPHELD. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1980.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners’ application to establish a new dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Herchee Industrial Co., Ltd. (HERH), at 203 Northeast Avenue, Gainesville, Florida 32609, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact While the dealership agreement between Petitioner Adly Moto (Adly) and Respondent is not in evidence, the weight of the evidence established that Respondent is an existing franchised dealer for Petitioner Adly. According to DHSMV's published notice, Petitioner Adly intended to establish a new motorcycle dealership, Scooter Superstore, at 203 Northeast 39th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, on or after July 16, 2008. There is no real dispute that this location is only 3 to 4 miles from Respondent's place of business. Therefore, Respondent has standing to protest Petitioner’s application pursuant to Section 320.642(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent’s license number is not in evidence. According to DHSMV’s published notice, Adly intended to establish Scooter Superstore as a dealer for the sale of HERH motorcycles. Currently, Respondent sells Adly motorcycles. The only evidence of record that HERH manufactures Adly products is an announcement dated April 2008 which states that “Her Chee Industrial/ADLY Moto LLC (USA) is proudly introducing Hammerhead Off-Road as our scooter distribution partner in the US.” It is therefore presumed that HERH manufactures Adly products. According to the evidence presented, Respondent has sold primarily scooters of 50 cubic centimeters or less. Respondent insists that he has ordered vehicles over 50 cubic centimeters from the distributor, but that the distributor has refused to ship these vehicles to him. There is evidence that at least three such vehicles were ordered by Solano Cycle, Inc., but the evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not these vehicles were to be offered for sale at the Gainesville location which is the subject of this controversy, or at another Solano Cycle location in another city. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish conclusively as to whether or not Adly vehicles larger than 50 cubic centimeters have been sold by Respondent.1 The market in Gainesville, Florida, comprises primarily college students and professors. According to Martin Solano, president of Respondent, the market in Gainesville is primarily scooters of 50 cubic centimeters or less. Other than anecdotal observations, no competent substantial evidence was presented as to the Gainesville market. There is no evidence establishing an objective, reasonable standard against which to compare the actual market penetration achieved by the existing dealer. Respondent moved to a larger location because the earlier location was very small and, therefore, could not hold a lot of stock. There is no evidence as to Respondent’s profits, capitalization, or financial resources to compete with the proposed new dealership. No market penetration data, whether inter-brand or intra-brand, is in evidence. Since an objective reasonable standard was not established, the actual penetration achieved against the expected standard cannot be established.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying Petitioners’ application. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 20th day of August, 2009.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership filed by Keeway America, LLC, and Sunset Point Scooters, Inc. (Petitioners), should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the protest filed by Retro in this case and granting the Petitioners' request to establish a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership for the sale of ZHQM motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2009, 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 23rd day of October, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Parr Sunset Point Scooters, Inc. 6481 27th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Doug Vitello Sunset Point Scooters, Inc. 112 South Maywood Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33765 Zhong Zhuang Keeway America, LLC 2912 Skyway Circle, North Irving, Texas 75038 Edward Dreyer, Jr. 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 is whether Petitioners should be allowed to establish a new point dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (ZHNG), in Jacksonville Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 2008, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) published a notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice advised that Galaxy Powersports, LLC d/b/a JCL International, LLC, intends to allow the establishment of Kitai Powersports, Inc., as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (ZHNG) at 228 North 3rd Street, Jacksonville Beach, Duval County, Florida, on or after October 3, 2008. By letter received by the Department on October 31, 2008, Respondent, Roadpower USA LLC, opposed the establishment of the dealership selling the same products as Roadpower USA, LLC, within .5 miles from its established dealership. On November 14, 2008, the Department referred this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct an evidentiary hearing. By Initial Order entered November 14, 2008, Petitioners and Respondent were required to provide certain information for the scheduling of the final hearing in this cause. None of the parties responded to the Initial Order. A Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference was entered on December 12, 2008, scheduling this case for final hearing on May 7, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. An Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered that same date, which required the parties to exchange witness lists and copies of exhibits no later than seven days prior to the final hearing. Copies of the witness lists were also required to be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. No witness lists have been filed. At 9:00 a.m. on May 7, 2009, the final hearing was convened. The only persons present were the court reporter, who was at the Jacksonville site, and the undersigned, who was at the Tallahassee site. The undersigned waited until approximately 9:25 a.m., but neither the Petitioners nor the Respondent appeared for the final hearing. The hearing was adjourned at approximately 9:30 a.m. No one on behalf of Petitioners or Respondent contacted the undersigned’s office with any explanation of their non-appearance before the hearing was adjourned, or thereafter.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying Petitioners’ application for the new point dealership at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 19th day of May, 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 Rustin Murray Kitai Powersports, Inc. 400 North Pimlico Street St. Augustine, Florida 32090 Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Claudio Biltoc Kitai Powersports, Inc. 143 Belmont Drive St. Johns, Florida 32259 Pete Biltoc Kitai Powersports, Inc. 13887 Sea Prairie Street Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Jim Lee Road Power USA, LLC 927 North 3rd Street Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The evidence showed that the dealership proposed by Petitioners would sell the same line and make of motorcycles as those sold by Respondent. The proposed dealership would also compete in the Respondent’s territory since it would be located in the same county as Respondent and would be within 20 miles of Respondent. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of the proposed dealership. On September 18, 2007, a Notice of Hearing setting the date, time and location of final hearing was issued in this case. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to the last known, valid addresses of the Petitioners, which were also the addresses provided in Petitioners’ Notice of Publication. Neither Notice of Hearing was returned. This cause came on for hearing as noticed. After waiting more than an hour, the Petitioners failed to appear to prosecute their claim. There has been no communication from the Petitioners before, during, or since the hearing to indicate that they would not be attending the final hearing. Because of Petitioners’ failure to appear, there was no evidence to demonstrate that Petitioners are entitled to a franchise motor vehicle dealership in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Absent such evidence, the establishment of the proposed dealership should be denied.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles denying the establishment of Petitioners’ proposed franchise. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 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 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Judson M. Chapman, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 David Wray Wholesale Nation Automotive, Inc. 319 Miracle Strip Parkway Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Mei Zhou SunL Group, Inc. 8551 Esters Boulevard Irvine, Texas 75063 Curtis Mitchell Coastal Powersports 12 Eglin Parkway Southeast Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's applications to establish new dealerships for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Shanghai Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (JMSTAR), and Shanghai Shenke Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (SHEN), should be granted. PRELIMANARY STATEMENT In the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 21, May 23, 2008, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) published two Notices of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of Less than 300,000 Population. Said notices advised that Petitioner Gator Moto, LLC and Gator Moto, LLC (Petitioner) intended to establish new dealerships for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Shanghai Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (JMSTAR), and Shanghai Shenke Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (SHEN). On or about June 3, 2008, Respondent Austin Global Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a New Scooters 4 Less (Respondent) filed two complaints with DHSMV about the proposed new motorcycle dealerships. DHSMV referred both complaints to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 10, 2008. On July 2, 2008, Respondent filed its Compliance with Initial Order. On July 7, 2008, Petitioner filed Petitioner's Compliance with Initial Order Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Nos. 08-2735 and 08-2736. This is the only communication that DOAH has received from Petitioner. On July 23, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Barbara J. Staros entered an Order of Consolidation for DOAH Case Nos. 08-2735 and 08-2736. On July 24, 2008, Judge Staros issued a Notice of Hearing, scheduling a final hearing on December 4, 2008. On November 26, 2008, Respondent filed its Compliance with Pre-hearing Instructions. Petitioner did not respond to the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. On December 1, 2008, Judge Staros issued an Amended Notice of Hearing. The amended notice only changed the commencement time for the hearing. DOAH subsequently transferred these consolidated cases to the undersigned. On the morning of the December 4, 2008, hearing, DHSMV advised the undersigned's office that DHSMV had failed to arrange for the appearance of a court reporter at the hearing. Accordingly, the undersigned issued an Order Granting Continuance and requiring the parties to confer and provide DOAH with mutually-agreeable dates for re-scheduling the hearing. On December 17, 2008, Respondent filed its unilateral Compliance with Order Granting Continuance. Respondent filed this pleading after an unsuccessful attempt to confer with Petitioner. On December 18, 2008, the undersigned issued a Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-hearing Instruction. The notice scheduled the hearing for February 9, 2008. On February 3, 2007, Respondent filed its unilateral Compliance with Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. Petitioner did not file a response to the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. When the hearing commenced, Petitioner did not make an appearance. Respondent made an appearance and presented the testimony of Colin Austin, Respondent's Managing Member. Respondent did not offer any exhibits. The hearing transcript was not filed with DOAH. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has standing to protest Petitioner's applications pursuant to Section 320.642(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008). According to DHSMV's published notice, Petitioner intended to establish two new motorcycle dealerships at 2106 Northwest 67th Place, Suite 15, Gainesville, Florida, on or after May 9, 2008. This location is only 4.5 miles from Respondent's place of business. At some point in time, Petitioner relocated its business to 7065 Northwest 22nd Street, Suite A, Gainesville, Florida. This location is only 5.3 miles from Respondent's place of business. Petitioner's application indicated that Petitioner intended to establish itself as a dealer of SHEN and JMSTAR motorcycles. Currently, Respondent sells those motorcycles under License No. VF/1020597/1. Respondent currently supplies itself with SHEN and JMSTAR products from a United States distributor. Respondent has a good faith belief that Petitioner intends to import the motorcycles and related products directly from the Chinese manufacturers. In that case, Petitioner would be able to sell the products at a lower price than Respondent and thereby deny Respondent the opportunity for reasonable growth. Petitioner did not notify DOAH about a change of address. DOAH's notices and orders directed to Petitioner at its address of record have not been returned. Petitioner has not communicated with DOAH since filing a response to the Initial Order. Petitioner did not make an appearance at the hearing. Apparently, Petitioner has abandoned its applications to establish the new dealerships.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying Petitioner's applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 16th 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 Collin Austin Austin Global Enterprise, LLC 118 Northwest 14th Avenue, Suite D Gainesville, Florida 32601 Justin Jackrel Gator Moto, LLC 4337 Northwest 35th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32605 Justin Jackrel Gator Moto, LLC 2106 Northwest 67th Place, Suite 15 Gainesville, Florida 32653 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 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
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner manufactures and sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles to authorized Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealers. Ulm is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ulm sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 2966 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida 33607. Ferman is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ferman sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 24314 State Road 54, Lutz, Florida 33559. It is undisputed that Petitioner has had four dealers in the Tampa metro market for a significant number of years. Petitioner's primary competitors also have had four or more dealers in the Tampa metro market. By appointing North Tampa as a successor dealer to Bob Wilson Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Wilson), Petitioner seeks to maintain the status quo of four Chrysler dealers in the Tampa metro market. In April 2008, Petitioner had four dealers in the Tampa metro market that each sold and serviced Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The four dealers were: Ulm, Ferman, Courtesy Chrysler Jeep Dodge, and Wilson. On April 25, 2008, Wilson filed a Chapter 11 petition in United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida (the Bankruptcy Court). At or about the same time, Wilson closed its doors and ceased selling and servicing Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The filing of Wilson’s bankruptcy petition precipitated an automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The automatic stay prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson’s franchise and dealer agreements (dealer agreements). But for Wilson’s bankruptcy filing, Petitioner would have sent Wilson a notice of termination when Wilson closed its doors and ceased dealership operations. Wilson’s cessation of business adversely impacted Petitioner. In relevant part, Petitioner lost sales and lacked a necessary fourth dealer to provide service to Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge customers in the Tampa metro market. Petitioner desired to reopen a dealership at or close to the former Wilson location as soon as possible to mitigate or eliminate the economic loss. During the automatic stay, Petitioner was legally precluded from unilaterally appointing a successor dealer to Wilson. Wilson still had valid dealer agreements for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles and, therefore, was still a dealer. During the automatic stay, Wilson attempted to sell its existing dealership assets, including the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealer agreements. Any attempt by Petitioner to appoint a successor dealer or even negotiate with a successor dealer, would have undermined Wilson’s efforts to sell the dealerships and maximize the estate for the benefit of the creditors. A sale of the dealership required the consent of Wilson and Wilson’s largest creditor, Chrysler Financial. Petitioner did everything it could to accelerate a sale. However, Petitioner was not a party to the sale negotiations and had no ability to require or force Wilson to sell the dealership or its assets to any particular party or to do so within any particular time period. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner did anything to intentionally, or inadvertently, delay or manipulate the timing of a sale. On July 30, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay. The motion also sought the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner filed the motion in the Bankruptcy Court in an attempt to hasten the sale negotiations. Petitioner also wanted to be able to terminate the dealer agreements as quickly as possible in the event that a sale was not consummated. The Bankruptcy Court did not initially grant Petitioner's motion. The court wanted to allow time for a sale of the dealership to proceed. During 2008 and early 2009, Wilson continued to negotiate with potential buyers for the dealership. On January 8, 2009, Wilson's motor vehicle dealer license expired. It became apparent to Petitioner that a sale of Wilson’s assets would be unlikely. Petitioner again asked the Bankruptcy Court to grant Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. On February 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. However, the order did not terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. On February 16, 2009, within a week of the entry of the order lifting the stay, Petitioner sent Wilson a notice of intent to terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. Wilson received the notice of termination on February 23, 2009, and the termination became effective on March 10, 2009. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner attempted to manipulate or delay the timing of the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner began working on establishing a replacement dealership as soon as Wilson’s dealer agreements were terminated. Establishing a replacement dealership is a lengthy process that primarily involves finding a suitable dealer candidate, finding a suitable location and facility, and making sure that the candidate has the necessary capital to start and maintain the dealership. Petitioner talked to several potential candidates to replace the Wilson dealership, including Jerry Ulm, the principal of one of the complaining dealers in these cases. By letter dated June 24, 2009, Mr. Ulm advised Petitioner that he opposed the opening of a successor dealership for anyone else but wanted the successor dealership for himself should Petitioner decide to proceed. Petitioner determined that Petitioner would not be able to locate the successor dealership at the former Wilson facility. Petitioner considered several potential alternative locations for the successor dealership, including property offered by Ferman. Ferman had a vacant site on Fletcher Avenue in Tampa, Florida, which Ferman leased from a third party unrelated to this proceeding. Ferman offered to sublease the property to Petitioner. In a letter to Petitioner's real estate agent dated July 17, 2009, Ferman stated Ferman's understanding that Petitioner intended to use the property to establish a Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealership. Petitioner ultimately decided to locate the dealership at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. It is undisputed that this location is less than two miles from the former Wilson location. Before establishing the successor dealership, however, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Department on February 5, 2010 (the letter). The letter requested the Department to confirm that the establishment of the successor dealership would be exempt under Subsection 320.642(5)(a)1. from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3). The letter explained that Wilson had filed bankruptcy and ceased operations and that the bankruptcy had prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson and appointing a successor dealership. The letter also provided the relevant dates of the bankruptcy, the lifting of the stay, and the termination of Wilson dealer agreements and advised the Department of Petitioner's intent to locate the successor dealership within two miles of Wilson’s former location. The letter asked the Department to confirm that the establishment of a successor dealership would be exempt if it was established within one year of March 10, 2009, when Petitioner terminated the Wilson dealer agreements. By separate e-mails dated February 9 and 12, 2010, the Department twice confirmed that it had consulted with counsel and determined that the establishment of a successor dealership to Wilson in the manner outlined by Petitioner would be exempt. Petitioner relied on this confirmation by the Department before proceeding with the appointment of a successor dealership. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner sent a second letter to the Department, stating Petitioner's intention to appoint North Tampa as the replacement and successor dealer for Wilson (the second letter). In the second letter, Petitioner again asserted its understanding that the establishment of North Tampa was exempt from the relevant statutory requirements for notice and protest. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner also submitted to the Department an application for a motor vehicle dealer license for North Tampa. On March 3, 2010, the Department issued a license to North Tampa for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On March 7, 2010, North Tampa opened for business. North Tampa has operated successfully and continuously and employs approximately 30 individuals at the site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the establishment of North Tampa as a successor motor vehicle dealer is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3) pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 11th day of October, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Hillsborough County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the documents which were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in this case: Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population, Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 29, July 18, 2008; and protest letter dated July 23, 2008, from Carlos A. Urbizi to Nalini Vinayak, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of Shanghai Shenke Motorcycles. Petitioners have proposed the establishment of a new dealership to sell the same line-make of motorcycles as those sold by Respondent. Respondent's dealership is located at 5702 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioners' proposed dealership would be located at 17630 U.S. 41 North, Lutz, Hillsborough County, Florida 33549. The proposed dealership is within a 12.5-mile radius of Respondent's dealership. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of the proposed dealership. No evidence was received showing that Respondent was "not providing adequate representation" of the same line-make motor vehicles in the community or territory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the establishment of Petitioners' proposed franchise dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 20th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: 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, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Robert L. Sardegna Auto Shop, Inc., d/b/a Motorsports Depot 17630 US 41 North Lutz, Florida 33549 Carlos Urbizu Mobility Tech, Inc., d/b/a Charlie's Scooter Depot 5720 North Florida Avenue, Unit 2 Tampa, Florida 33604 Mei Zhou SunL Group, Inc. 8551 Ester Boulevard Irving, Texas 75063
