Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Elizabeth W. McArthur, 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. Said Order Closing File was predicated upon Respondent’s notice of withdrawal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Gorilla Motor Works LLC and Sunset Point Scooters, Inc. to sell motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 2300 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater (Pinellas County), Florida 33765. Filed June 23, 2011 8:00 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this _ 7 7 day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sandra C. Lambert, Intérim Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A435, MS 80 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this_/7 day of June, 2011. S ini Vinayak, Dealer Administrator 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. SCL:vlg Copies furnished: Diana Hammer Gorilla Motor Works LLC 12485 44" Street North, Suite A Clearwater, Florida 33762 Michelle R. Stanley Tropical Scooters LLC 11610 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 33778 totent2inimbA gan yslssQ ASyRGIY ins Doug Vitello Sunset Point Scooters, Inc. 112 South Maywood Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33765 Elizabeth W. McArthur Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Ella Jane P. Davis, 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. Said Order Closing file was predicated upon Respondent’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement between Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A. and Fun By Land and Sea, Inc. is terminated. DONE AND ORDERED this yA 4, of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon afl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 County, Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this _Tthday of August, 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: Donald St. Denis, Esquire St. Denis & Davey 1300 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Administrator Ella Jane P. Davis Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 ‘Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS KAWASAKI MOTORS CORPORATION, _) USA, ) Petitioners, vs. Case No.: 09-0720 FUN BY LAND AND SEA, INC.,, Respondents. | NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Respondents, FUN BY LAND & SEA, INC., by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.420(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice of its Petition for Administrative Proceedings and determination of unfair termination under § 320.641(3), Florida Statutes, by Petitioner, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORPORATION, U.S.A., in the above titled action. Each party to this action shall bear their own attorney fees and costs. ST. DENIS & DAVEY, P.A. DONALD W. ST. DENIS, a Florida Bar Number 0794864 MICHAEL J. LUFKIN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar Number 0030492 1300 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (904) 396-1996 — Telephone (904) 396-1991 — Facsimile Attorneys for Respondents Filed July 24, 2009 4:46 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by facsimile and U.S. Mail this 24th day of July, 2009, to C. Everett Boyd, Jr., Esq., Atiorney for Petitioner, : Nelson Muilins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202, Tallahassee, FL 32312; and Dean Bunch, Esq., Attorney for Petitioner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202, Tallahassee, FL 32312; and by U.S. Mail to Michael J. Alderman, Esq., Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Nei] Kirkman Building, Room A-432, 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32344.
The Issue Whether Respondent, The MG Herring Group, Inc. (MG Herring), was an employer of Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as Manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as Manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group) operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager, and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 May, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dean's Kawasaki, Inc., d/b/a Dean's Honda-Kawasaki-Suzuki (Dean's), is an authorized dealer for Suzuki brand motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATV's) and generators in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. Dean's is also an authorized dealer for similar Honda and Kawasaki products. Lorre Dean Mays is the president and owner of Dean's. Mr. Mays purchased the dealership, then known as Suzuki of Vero Beach, on July 31, 1981, for approximately $80,000. The purchase price reflected consideration of all assets of the business, except motorcycles, 1/ and included $7,238 of Suzuki parts and accessories and $5,690 of other accessories. Dean's currently has approximately $8,000 worth of Suzuki parts and accessories in inventory. At the time of its acquisition, the Vero Beach dealership sold exclusively Suzuki products and had been, for the year preceding July 1981, one of the top one hundred sales producers in the United States. At hearing, Mr. Mays claimed to have won this award from Suzuki, however, the evidence is clear that such award was not attributable to Mr. Mays' efforts in the dealership. While the award was given to the dealership, it was based on the dealership's performance prior to its purchase by Mr. Mays. Although not an award winning dealer, there is no suggestion that Dean's performance prior to the 1985 model year (October 1, 1984, through September 30, 1985) was anything short of satisfactory. On February 12, 1985, Suzuki's district sales manager, Charles Barrett, made his semi-annual visit to Dean's. During the course of that 31 hour visit, Mr. Barrett inventoried Dean's product lines and reviewed, with Mr. Mays, Dean's sales figures. Mr. Barrett's inspection revealed that Dean's had in stock 19 Suzuki units (11 old model motorcycles, 4 current model motorcycles, and 4 current model ATV's), and no Suzuki units on order. Comparatively, Dean's had on hand 20 Kawasaki units and 100 Honda units. Dean's Suzuki sales figures and market share for Indian River County were substantially below those of the previous year. Since the commencement of the 1985 model year on October 1, 1984, Dean's had sold only 7 Suzuki units, 2/ compared with 45 units the previous year. During the same time period, Dean's had sold 25 Kawasaki units and 150 Honda units. Nationally, Kawasaki and Suzuki enjoy about the same percentage of the market. At the conclusion of his visit, Mr. Barrett advised Mr. Mays, orally and in writing, that Dean's sale of two wheel products was poor, that better sales efforts needed to be made, and that more Suzuki units needed to be ordered and stocked. Mr. Barrett recommended that Dean's place an order for twenty 1985 model motorcycles, which would represent sixteen different models in Suzuki's current product line, as well as an advance order for fourteen 1986 model motorcycles. As of September 1985, Suzuki's records reflect that Dean's had not ordered any Suzuki units, and had made only one additional sale of a Suzuki product. At the time of hearing, Dean's had only two Suzuki units in stack. By letter of September 23, 1985, Respondent, Suzuki, notified Dean's that its dealer agreement was cancelled. The letter of termination provided in pertinent part: This action is being taken based on the following: You have failed to maintain a sales volume which is comparable to other similarly situated dealers within your region. You have failed to maintain a sufficient level of Suzuki inventory to adequately represent the line of Suzuki products. You have failed to use Suzuki advertising programs to promote Suzuki products in your sales area. Dean's timely filed a verified complaint with Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department), alleging that its sales volume exceeded that of similarly situated dealers, that it maintained a sufficient inventory to supply its region, that it had participated in all Suzuki promotions available to it, and that the proposed cancellation was an unfair cancellation under Section 320.641, Florida Statutes. To compare Dean's sales performance with "similarly located Suzuki dealers in comparable trade areas," Suzuki identified its dealers situated in Florida counties with similar populations and similar total industry sales. During the period from December 31, 1984, through October 1, 1985, sales of Suzuki products by Dean's (Indian River County), compared with the dealerships in the other counties, were as follows: Citrus County 62 Clay County 112 Hernando County 13 Indian River County 5 Martin County 59 Monroe County 18 Osceola County 40 Putnam County 36 St. Johns County 17 While Dean questioned whether some of the counties selected by Suzuki were truly comparable to Indian River County, it offered no proof that would detract from the probative value of Suzuki's comparison. The sale of five Suzuki units in a nine-month period was significantly below that of similarly located Suzuki dealers, and Dean's did not suggest or attempt to show otherwise. Rather, Dean's sought to show that its sales performance was greater than that reflected by Suzuki's records because Dean's registered all purchases and sales through Mr. May's Okeechobee County dealership. In 1984 Mr. Mays had acquired Suzuki of Okeechobee. He avers that upon its acquisition he undertook to "improve" the Okeechobee franchise by purchasing for both franchises, and registering sales for both franchises, under his Okeechobee dealership number. According to Mr. Mays, he adopted this approach to "establish" the Okeechobee dealership and, thereby, assure its "allocation" of Suzuki products. Mr. Mays' testimony is not credited. 3/ During the 1985 and 1986 model years, there was no shortage of Suzuki products and Suzuki had no "allocation" policy. Mr. Mays was specifically advised by Mr. Barrett on February 12, 1985, that the Vero Beach dealership had a poor sales record and that it needed to stock more units to promote the Suzuki line. The evidence establishes that Dean's did not improve its sales record and that it did not stock for display, demonstration, or sale an inventory adequate to promote Suzuki's product line. 4/ The proof is consistent with Mr. Mays' concession that over the last two years he did not pay as much attention to his business as he should have paid. Consistent with its low inventory and poor sales performance, Dean's participated in little or none of Suzuki's cooperative advertising programs during the 1985 model year, nor did it otherwise specifically support the Suzuki product line through newspaper or billboard advertising. 5/ Dean's advertising efforts were restricted to the expenditure of $2,000 to promote Honda-Kawasaki- Suzuki at three fairs and radio "live remotes," the "sponsorship" of a Suzuki ATV racer, and occasional seasonal displays of a Suzuki product at a local shopping mall. 6/ The dealership agreement executed by Dean's and Suzuki on December 5, 1984, provides in pertinent part: PURPOSE * * * Suzuki expects, and Dealer in executing this agreement acknowledges, that Dealer will actively, aggressively and honestly promote the sale of Suzuki products to retail customers . . . To achieve the purposes set forth above and the mutual obligations of the parties to each other, it is agreed as follows: Dealer's Responsibility Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, Suzuki will sell Suzuki products to Dealer and Dealer will use its best efforts to sell Suzuki products at retail . . . * * * GENERALS CONDITIONS * * * Dealer Sales Responsibility. Dealer will maintain annual sales volume mutually agreed upon each year by Suzuki and Dealer. Dealer will establish a target growth factor which it will strive to achieve through aggressive marketing and promotion of Suzuki products. Dealer agrees that the best method of measuring its market area share is by comparison of its Suzuki sales against the national, state, county and local area Suzuki sales percentages in the motorcycle industry7 as determined by a recognized reporting organization. Dealer also agrees that comparison of its sales to similarly located Suzuki dealers in comparable trade areas is a proper criteria to measure its sales performance. Inventory Responsibility. Dealer must maintain the level of Suzuki motorcycle inventory recommended by Suzuki . . . * * * 2.10 Inventories. Dealer shall main- tain at all times a minimum inventory of Suzuki motorcycles for display, demonstration and sale. A minimum inventory is the quantity, and models, necessary for a sixty- day supply, based on the current Dealer sales plan but subject to availability. * * * 8.1 Advertising Suzuki Products. Dealer acknowledges his responsibility to use advertising programs to promote Suzuki products in his sales area. * * * 8.4 Cooperative Advertising Program. Dealer will participate in Suzuki's cooperative advertising program in accordance with Suzuki's Co-op Policy and advertising bulletins published from time to time. * * * Termination Written Notice. If Dealer does not conduct its business in accordance with the requirements set forth herein, Suzuki may terminate this agreement by giving to Dealer written notice of termination. * * * 9.3 Sixty Days Written Notice. Suzuki may terminate this agreement with sixty (60) days written notice after the occurrence of any of the following events: (1) Failure of the Dealer to maintain the sales volume established for the dealership by mutual agreement of Suzuki and Dealer. * * * (6) Failure to carry an adequate inventory of Suzuki motorcycles and genuine Suzuki parts. The dealership agreement expressly requires that Dean's maintain an annual sales volume mutually agreed upon between the parties. In this case there was no such agreement nor evidence of any attempt to reach such an agreement. Absent such proof, cancellation of Dean's dealership agreement because of "inadequate sales" would be contrary to the dealer agreement and unfair. With respect to inventory, section 2.10 of the agreement provides that Dealer shall maintain at all times a minimum inventory of Suzuki motorcycles for display, demonstration and sale. A minimum inventory is the quantity, and models, necessary for a sixty-day supply, based on the current Dealer sales plan . . . Because it had no "Dealer sales plan," Dean's asserts it is not in violation of the agreement's inventory requirements, and therefore, cancellation would be unfair. Dean's assertion is unpersuasive. While section 2.10 of the dealership agreement does establish a minimum level of inventory based on a "Dealer sales plan," it does not preclude Suzuki from requiring, pursuant to section 2.8, that a dealer maintain a higher or more diverse inventory to promote Suzuki's product line. Absent a showing that the level of inventory recommended by Suzuki was unreasonable, cancellation of the dealership agreement for failure to maintain such an inventory level is not unfair. 7/
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Charles A. Stampelos, 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. Said Order Closing file was predicated upon a stipulated settlement agreement between the parties, filed August 5, 2010. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Authorized Dealer Agreement between Solano Cycle, Inc. and Adly Moto LLC remains in full force and effect. . DONE AND ORDERED this / eo day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. L A. FORD, Directo Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed August 17, 2010 9:59 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this Lah day of August, 2010. 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: vig Copies furnished: Charles A. Stampelos Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Garrett Laves Adly Moto LLC 1200 Lakeside Parkway, Suite 325 Flower Mound, Texas 75025 Martin Edward Solano Solano Cycle, Inc. 1024A South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by T. Kent Wetherell, II, 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. Said Order Closing file was predicated upon Respondent's notice of withdrawal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Dealer Agreement between JH Global Services, Inc. and Golf Cart Connection, Inc. is terminated. DONE AND ORDERED this I fP: I '1 day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CARL A. FORD, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed September 15, 2009 3:32 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this /ifll day of September, 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: Les Levy c/o Golf Cart Connection, Inc. 1220 Camp Avenue Mount Dora, Florida 32776 Jane Zhang JH Global Services, Inc. 52 Pelham Davis Circle Greenville, South Carolina 29615 T. Kent Wetherell, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 2 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section 3
