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 the final order dismissing Crown's Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Loula M. Fuller, Esquire Walter E. Forehand, Esquire Myers, Forehand and Fuller 402 Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dean Bunch, Esquire Cabaniss and Burke, P. A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether J.S. Imports, Inc. should be granted a new point Mazda dealership at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida, pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is a manufacturer of automobiles and trucks which are distributed and sold through a network of dealerships. Under Florida law Mazda is denoted a "licensee." On January 5, 1996, a notice of publication for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealer was published which announced Mazda intends to allow the establishment of J.S. Imports, Inc., as a dealership for the sale of Mazda vehicles at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach (Palm Beach County), Florida 33415. The notice further provided, in pertinent part: Mazda Motor of America, Inc., intends to engage in business with J. S. Imports, Inc., as a dealership on or after February 1, 1996. The name and address of the dealer-operator and principal investor of J. S. Imports, Inc., is: John Staluppi, Jr., 42 Davidson Lane East, West Islip, New York 11795. * * * Dealerships of the same line-make which can establish standing to protest the establishment of the new point may do so by filing a written petition or complaint with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Thereafter, on February 1, 1996, Respondents, Stewart Mazda, Delray Mazda, and Jupiter Dodge Mazda, filed a petition or complaint challenging the proposed new point dealer. Respondents are the existing Mazda dealerships located within Palm Beach County. There are no other same line-make motor vehicle dealerships which are physically located so as to meet or satisfy the requirements of Section 320.642(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, all dealers with the potential for standing have participated in this proceeding. Palm Beach County is a county with more than 300,000 population. Respondent, Stewart Mazda, is located at 2001 South Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is within 12.5 miles of the proposed location for the new point site. In fact, the Stewart dealership is within five miles of the proposed new point. Respondent, Delray Mazda, is not located within 12.5 miles of the proposed location. Nevertheless, Delray Mazda established that during any 12 month period of the 36 month period preceding the filing of the licensee's application for the proposed dealer Delray Mazda made 25% of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were within a radius of 12.5 miles of the proposed site. Respondent, Jupiter Dodge Mazda, is not within 12.5 miles of the location for the proposed new dealership yet it also met the sales standard described in paragraph 7. The proposed new motor vehicle dealer, J.S. Imports, Inc., is owned by John Staluppi, Jr., the son of John Staluppi. No other person or entity owns more than a 10% interest in JSI. It is proposed that J.S. Imports, Inc. will be located at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Such real property is part of an automobile mall or auto mall (a cluster of automobile dealerships) which is owned or controlled by John Staluppi. The new Mazda vehicle sales facility would be located at 631 South Military Trail; however, the service facility for the dealership would be located elsewhere within a shared space at 561 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Both parcels are owned or controlled by John Staluppi. Both parcels are part of the same auto mall. As part of its documentation to establish the dealership, J.S. Imports, Inc. (JSI) submitted an unsigned lease for the subject property between John Staluppi and the proposed dealer. On or about October 25, 1996, just prior to this case going to hearing, John Staluppi entered into an agreement to sell the assets of the automobile dealerships located within the auto mall. He also agreed to lease the real estate upon which they are located. The lease included the sites for the new Mazda point as well as the service location. Without going into details of the agreement which are not material to the issues of this case, and without listing all of the corporate entities involved in the transaction, the principals in this new agreement were John Staluppi and Terry Taylor. Material to this case, however, is the covenant between Mr. Taylor and John Staluppi, Jr. Those parties reached an agreement to sublease the real estate at 631 South Military Trail and the service department at 561 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Such agreement to sublease was also executed October 25, 1996. Based upon the foregoing, as of October 25, 1996, the proposed site for the Mazda new point dealer continued to be 631 South Military Trail with service work to be at 561. These sites are identical to the information submitted by the applicant to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. This information was also disclosed to Respondents during discovery of the case, prior to the prehearing stipulation. Subsequently, the transaction between Mr. Taylor and John Staluppi was abandoned. Mr. Taylor’s deposit on the transaction was refunded. Apparently, these parties no longer intend to abide by the terms of the asset purchase agreement. JSI does not own the proposed site. If approved, JSI will lease the property from John Staluppi or entities he owns or controls. As of the time of hearing, JSI did not have a signed lease for the subject property. Typically, Mazda does not submit applications for new point dealerships without some documentation substantiating control of the proposed site. A proposed dealer would normally either own or control the proposed site. Control of the site may be shown by a lease, an option to purchase or an option to lease. In this instance, Mazda presumed the proposed site would be secured through the efforts of John Staluppi, Jr. on behalf of his company which would lease from his father. Moreover, Mazda believes its agreement with JSI (for the applicant dealer to reimburse it for costs or expenses incurred should the dealership effort fail due to an act or omission of JSI) adequately protected its interests in this regard. As of the dates of filing the application for a new point dealership, the notice of same, and the hearing in this cause, no person or entity, other than John Staluppi, Jr., had a beneficial ownership interest in the proposed dealership. To determine whether an additional same line-make dealer should be approved, the existing network of motor vehicle dealers must be evaluated to determine whether they are providing adequate representation to the community or territory. The applicable statutory criteria do not define "adequate representation" nor the "community or territory." Typically, sales data of past dealership performance is utilized by all parties to establish a community or territory (Comm/Terr) and to evaluate the dealers' effectiveness. In this case how the Comm/Terr should be defined is disputed by the parties. Although entitled to weight in the consideration of how the Comm/Terr should be defined, the dealer agreements with the three existing dealers (Respondents) do not assign an area by geographical boundaries. Respondents believe the Comm/Terr, based upon their interpretation of their agreements, should be defined as Palm Beach County as a whole. In contrast, Mazda studies have defined the market for these dealers in different ways; however, it believes the Comm/Terr should be Palm Beach County excluding the primary market area (PMA) ascribed to Jupiter Dodge Mazda. In making this determination, Mazda constructed the PMAs for the existing dealers as well as the new point (or open point) which has been designated as the Staluppi PMA. Within the Staluppi PMA it is presumed that dealer would have a competitive advantage in the market. Similarly, within the Stewart PMA that dealer would have the competitive edge due to customer preference and convenience. The actual shopping patterns of Mazda customers was also assessed. In this case, the three dealers are located in three distinct geographical areas: one toward the northern boundary of the county at Jupiter; one to the south at Delray; and one in the eastern central portion at downtown West Palm Beach. The proposed Staluppi/JSI site is west of the Stewart location. Based upon the actual shopping patterns the majority of the sales by these three existing dealers are made to customers in the same county. Because few of Mazda's customers come from adjacent counties, the largest area which should be used to define the Comm/Terr is the county itself. Within Palm Beach County there are also identifiable plots associated with the three dealers which show that while Stewart and Delray are connected to the JSI site (via established purchasing patterns), Jupiter is not. For this reason, Mazda's expert in rendering his initial opinions regarding this matter excluded Jupiter from the Comm/Terr. This approach has been deemed persuasive. Currently, there are three clusters of automobile and truck dealerships within the Palm Beach Comm/Terr: Delray, where Mazda is now located; Military Trail/Okeechobee Boulevard, where Mazda wants to be located; and North Lake Boulevard. Eighty percent of the customers who shop for new cars, regardless of brand, go to one of the three clusters. Mazda is not represented in two of these popular shopping venues. Mazda and Dodge are the only brands offered in Jupiter. Less than 5% of the customers from the remainder of Palm Beach County (away from the Jupiter PMA) went to Jupiter to purchase a new vehicle. To determine a reasonable expected market penetration standard, it is appropriate to exclude certain factors, such as the consumer preferences for certain types of vehicles (independent of brand) over which the dealers have no control. Market penetration is the traditional standard used to measure adequacy of representation because it reflects the competitive efforts of the competing dealers. Registration data of all brands is used to comprise a single indicator called market share, which is an objective and accurate measure of market activity. Registration data reflects actual consumer purchases. Actual registrations account for demographic characteristics, including age, income, education, size-class preferences, and product popularity. Market penetration for any area is computed utilizing all registrations to addresses in the area, regardless of the location of the selling dealer. After registration data is compiled, the performance of the Comm/Terr can be compared to another market area (allowing for differences in segment popularity). In this case, Mazda compared the Palm Beach Comm/Terr to the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale market. Typically, manufacturers and companies which compile data regarding vehicle sales classify new vehicle sales into segments. These segments list models which are comparable to one another and are, presumably, competing for the same customer. Mazda classifies its vehicles into nine segments. Although it could be argued Mazda is ineffective against Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, part of that theoretical ineffectiveness is due to the lack or absence of entries from Mazda into markets or segments flooded by those make vehicles. For example, Mazda does not have a vehicle to compete with a Chevrolet Suburban. Nevertheless, on a segment-by-segment basis where Mazda competes with an entry comparable to the other line-makes (in size and class) Mazda's effectiveness can be computed and demonstrated. By measuring Mazda's penetration in each segment achieved in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area, applied to the industry data available in each segment in the Staluppi/JSI PMA, an appropriate standard is established for what could be expected if the latter were receiving adequate representation. Similarly, by applying the penetration rate to the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole it is possible to establish what could be expected if the Comm/Terr were receiving adequate representation. By considering the segment analysis the process takes into account differences in consumer preferences between markets as to the popularity of segments, and thereby gives a more accurate measure of what Mazda's reasonably expected market penetration should be. Utilizing this segment analysis, the reasonably expected 1995 Mazda market share in the Staluppi/JSI PMA was 5.97%. The actual penetration for Mazda in this PMA was 3.81%. Similarly, in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr in 1995, Mazda's reasonably expected share in the segments was 6.21%. The actual penetration for Mazda in the Comm/Terr was 4.49%. Alternatively, adding Jupiter to the Palm Beach Comm/Terr, Mazda's reasonably expected market share in 1995 was 6.19%. The actual penetration in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr (adding Jupiter) was 4.65%. Thus, in each analysis Mazda performance fell short of its reasonably expected penetration. With a properly constructed dealer network, containing the appropriate number of dealerships in proper locations, it is reasonable to expect the dealer network in Palm Beach County to perform as well as the dealer network in Miami/Fort Lauderdale after adjusting for the local consumer patterns that make Palm Beach different from the other area. Net shortfall is the number of additional Mazdas that would have to be registered in order to equal the expected level based on average performance across an area. On the basis of the net shortfall in units, or units required to be registered in order to bring the Staluppi/JSI PMA up to the expected performance, the 1995 shortfall was 246 units. In reviewing the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole over the three year period from 1993 to 1995, the efficiency has changed from 70.1% to 72.4%. For the Comm/Terr plus Jupiter, the efficiency has changed from 68.6% to 75.2% during the three years immediately following the insertion of Jupiter Dodge Mazda. Mazda was not receiving adequate representation from the standpoint of not achieving reasonably expected market share. That conclusion is the same whether the area under review is the Staluppi/JSI PMA, the larger Palm Beach Comm/Terr, or the Palm Beach Comm/Terr with Jupiter included. Increases in performance in 1996 (after the existing dealers knew an additional dealer was being sought for the Palm Beach Comm/Terr) while commendable do not negate the historical pattern of providing inadequate representation. The growth of population and households in Palm Beach County has been predominately to the west and central portions of the county and throughout the Delray Beach area. The proposed Staluppi/JSI PMA has also experienced rapid growth in households and population which is expected to continue. Among Mazda buyers, 28.5% thought that the location of the dealer was extremely important; 35.1% thought it was very important; 22.8% thought it was somewhat important; whereas only 8.7% thought it was not important, and 4.9% not important at all. The Military Trail auto mall into which JSI proposes to open the additional Mazda dealership, now contains Toyota, Jeep Eagle, Chrysler Plymouth, Nissan, Infiniti, Kia, GMC, Saturn, Ford and Isuzu. Other brands considered part of this cluster are on Okeechobee Boulevard. They are VW, Hyundai, Acura, Subaru, Volvo, Oldsmobile, Buick, Audi, BMW, Lexis, Lincoln Mercury, Chevrolet, Dodge, Mitsubishi and Mercedes Benz. Mazda would be required to have 3.2 dealerships in order to have the same share of the franchises in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as it has in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. Because Jupiter Dodge Mazda does not serve the Palm Beach Comm/Terr in a meaningful way, the Comm/Terr has two Mazda dealerships, and needs at least one more dealership to have a reasonable opportunity to receive adequate interbrand competition and gain expected market share. The likely cause of the current inadequacy of performance for the Palm Beach Comm/Terr is insufficient dealer count and poor dealer location. Without a dealer in the Staluppi/JSI PMA, consumers average 9.9 miles from the nearest Mazda dealer, which is higher than the major competitors located in the Staluppi/JSI PMA. With the addition of a Mazda dealer in the Staluppi/JSI PMA customers will be 7.2 miles, on average, to the nearest Mazda dealer a distance which should be more competitive with other brands such as Ford (3.9 miles), Chevrolet (4.7 miles), Nissan (7.2 miles), and Toyota (7.2 miles). Optimal location analysis also demonstrates that the proposed location would maximize customer convenience. If the J. S. Imports dealership is allowed to "float" in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr, while the other dealer locations are fixed, the location which would maximize customer convenience is near the proposed site. The proposed location is near the optimal location, and in the midst of a cluster of dealerships where approximately 30% of the sales of all Palm Beach County dealers are made. The proposed site is good in terms of solving the customer convenience problem in the area, and providing Mazda a presence in the cluster where many sales are made. The addition of a dealership will likely benefit consumers and the public interest. It will provide the growing population of the Staluppi/JSI PMA with a more convenient place to shop for Mazdas and more convenient Mazda service. It will take Mazda to a growing cluster of dealerships allowing customers a one stop opportunity to comparison shop Mazda and its competitors. Moreover, with increased interbrand and intrabrand competition Mazda and the existing dealers should be able to improve sales penetration and take advantage of the available market for Mazda products. Therefore, because of the large untapped opportunity for Mazda in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole, in the Comm/Terr plus Jupiter, and in the "identifiable plot" known as the Staluppi/JSI PMA, the addition of a new dealer should not cause a decrease in the existing Mazda dealers' sales over the long term. The addition should have a positive impact upon the overall sales opportunities for all the Mazda dealers. If you compute the total lost opportunity for sales in this market (941 units) and allocate a portion of sales to the Staluppi/JSI PMA (555), the remainder would be available to the existing dealers of the Comm/Terr. This remainder of the lost opportunity, (467 units utilizing the average penetration profile; 386 using the Jupiter profile), would be available for all Palm Beach Mazda dealers. Therefore, the proposed addition of a dealership can take place without taking any sales from existing Mazda dealers. The existing dealers should increase their sales because a large number of customers are now shopping in the Northlake and Okeechobee/Military Trail clusters, and could not previously consider Mazda conveniently because of the lack of a dealer. Having a dealer in the Okeechobee/Military Trail cluster should stimulate interest in Mazdas. All existing dealers have made substantial financial investments to perform their obligations under their dealers' agreements. In Stewart's case, the total investment is close to $5,000,000. Stewart's real estate and building are valued at approximately $3,000,000. Jupiter Dodge Mazda has about $1,000,000 invested in its dealership. Delray Mazda has approximately $3,500,000 invested in its dealership. All three existing dealerships should benefit from an increased Mazda presence in the market place. The reasonably expected market penetration for Mazda should improve with an additional dealership at the Staluppi auto mall. Mazda has not denied its existing dealers an opportunity for reasonable growth, expansion or relocation. In fact, Mazda urged Stewart to establish the dealership at the proposed location. Only when efforts with Stewart failed did Mazda go outside the existing dealers for an operator for the additional point. Mazda has not attempted to coerce the existing dealers into consenting to the additional dealership. In reaching this conclusion the single incident complained of by one existing dealer (that Mazda withdrew some advertising support) has been considered but is not persuasive that Mazda has acted improperly in its efforts to establish the new point. The distance travel time, considering traffic patterns and accessibility, between the proposed site and its nearest same line-make dealer (Stewart) is approximately ten minutes. While geographically closer than other dealers of same line-make vehicles, traffic and accessibility put the proposed site and Stewart at a reasonable distance. No evidence in this case supports a conclusion that consumers could have the same benefits offered by the proposed dealership from other changes. No evidence suggests the existing dealers are not in compliance with their dealer agreements. Intrabrand and interbrand competition should improve with the establishment of the new point. Service and sales facilities will be more convenient to customers. All existing dealers make sales into the area of the proposed site. With anticipated population growth and market availability, any sales lost to the new point should be offset by Mazda’s increased market presence, improved market penetration, and greater overall sales for all dealerships.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway Safety enter a final order approving the new point dealership sought by Mazda Motor of America on behalf of J.S. Imports, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James D. Adams, Esquire Adams & Quinton 7300 West Camino Real Camino Real Centre Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Douglas E. Thompson Post Office Box 16480 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Dean J. Rosenbach Lewis, Vegosen, Rosenbach & Silber, P.A. Post Office Box 4388 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4388 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Jeff B. Clark, 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 the Respondent’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed on August 05, 2010. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Franchise Agreement between Nissan Diesel America, Inc. and American Import Car Sales, Inc. d/b/a Jumbo Auto and Truck Plaza of Fort Pierce is terminated. Filed August 20, 2010 1:15 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this J? = day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CARL 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 of Motor Vehicles this_F2#hday of August, 2010. . . Ni , 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. CAF: vig Copies furnished: John W. Forehand, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Matthew Porter Julian, Esquire Baker & Hostetler LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, Florida 32803 David R. Jarrett, Esquire Baker & Hostetler LLP 1000 Louisiana Avenue, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77002 Jeff B. Clark Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section
Findings Of Fact On July 26, 1990, Lake filed an intent to sell said dealership to Nolette. On September 13, 1991, the Petitioner filed a verified complaint with the Department rejecting the proposed transfer between Lake and Nolette. The Petitioner was also informed that the proposal included relocation of the dealership from its current location to 710 South Bay Street, Eustis, Florida. The Petitioner moved to dismiss that portion of the matter related to relocation of the dealership. By Order dated December 19, 1990, that portion of the complaint relating to the approval of the change of location was dismissed. The only matters before the Division of Administrative Hearings are those related to the change of ownership. The Petitioner's basis for opposing the proposal is the failure of Nolette, a Jeep Eagle dealer (another Chrysler subsidiary), to meet existing customer satisfaction standards for Chrysler dealers. The Petitioner's agreements with its dealers require them to maintain certain objective customer satisfaction standards. The Petitioner asserts its standards are reasonable; Nolette failed to meet those standards; and the Petitioner has rejected other proposed transfers for the acquiring dealer's failure to meet those standards. The Petitioner markets Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, and Dodge Trucks, which are the line-makes sold by Lake. (TR-7). Nolette, the proposed purchaser of Lake, is the current owner and operator of Plaza Jeep Eagle, located in Lake County, Florida. (TR-8; EX-2, pg. 1). Jeep was manufactured by American Motors. The Petitioner purchased American Motors and entered into uniform dealer agreements with American Motors' Jeep and Eagle dealers, including Plaza Jeep Eagle. (TR-9; EX-2). Upon entering into the agreement with Plaza Jeep Eagle, the Petitioner, through its subsidiary, American Motor Sales Corporation, relied "on the active, substantial and continuing personal participation in the management of Dealer's organization by Joseph H. Nolette". (EX-2, pg. 1, paragraph 2). As a part of the Jeep Eagle sales agreement, Nolette agreed, in paragraph 11B, on page 4, as follows: Dealer shall at all times during this agreement meet its minimum service satisfaction requirements by maintaining a rating on American Motors Sales Corporations' Customer Satisfaction Index, Prep-It-Right and Deliver-It-Right evaluations, as determined by American Motors Sales Corporation from time to time based upon surveys conducted of the dealer's customers, which is equal to or greater than the average Customer Satisfaction Index, Prep-It-Right and Deliver-It-Right ratings for the National sales group levels as those groups are determined by AMSC from time to time in which the dealer is included. (emphasis supplied). The sales group referred to in the dealer agreement are determined by the sales volume of the dealership so that similar size dealers may be compared. (TR-11). The system by which dealers are measured is explained to the dealer through booklets detailing the operation of the surveys and their results. (EX- 3). Customer satisfaction is sampled by questionnaires to the dealer's customers. Only questions relating to the operation of the dealership are used to assess the dealership, including courtesy of dealership personnel, convenience of scheduling, vehicle ready when promised, work done right the first time, the availability of parts, explanation of service, repairs, charges, and service and maintenance work after the sale. (TR-30). Other questions dealing with the vehicle itself, such as "Would you buy another vehicle from Chrysler Corporation?", are asked; however, the dealer is not scored on those questions. (TR-30). Nolette's operation at Plaza Jeep Eagle does not comply with the standards set out in its dealer agreement for Customer Satisfaction Index (hereinafter referred to as the Prep-It-Right, and the Deliver-It-Right standards. (TR-13). In the CSI survey, Plaza Jeep Eagle scored a 2.70 on a 0 to 4 scale, compared to 3.40 for similar dealers throughout the nation ("National Sales Group") for the twelve (12) month period ending June of 1989. (EX-4, pg. 6). Utilizing other standards to review Plaza Jeep Eagle's performance, similar results appear. Plaza Jeep Eagle is also substantially below the national average for all dealers (3.12); the average for dealers in the Orlando zone (3.00); the average for the Orlando zone for Similarly-sized dealers ("Zone Sales Group")(2.83); and for all dealers in the central Florida district near Plaza Jeep Eagle (3.19). Since June of 1989, Plaza Jeep Eagle's cumulative twelve (12) month average score has decreased, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the National Sales Group standard, as follows: 6/89 12/89 6/90 Plaza Jeep Eagle 2.70 2.63 2.29 National Sales Group 3.40 3.40 3.38 Plaza, as a percentage of National Sales Group 79% 77% 68% Similarly, Plaza Jeep Eagle is consistently below other measures of CSI performance which, although not contractually mandated for comparison, demonstrate the reasonableness of the National Sales Group standard, as follows: 6/89 12/89 6/90 Plaza Jeep Eagle 2.70 2.63 2.29 National Average 3.12 3.15 3.14 Orlando Zone Average 3.00 3.02 3.01 Orlando Zone Sales Group 2.83 3.04 2.95 Central Florida District Average 3.19 3.12 3.12 With regard to the Prep-It-Right and Deliver-It-Right questions of consumers, a consistent and substantially lower percentage of buyers were satisfied with Plaza Jeep Eagle than with the national group of similarly-sized dealers. For the period ending in Juice of 1989, 71% of Plaza Jeep Eagle's customers were satisfied with the preparation of their vehicle and 71% with the delivery of the vehicle, compared to 97% for both measures in the National Sales Group. In December of 1989, Plaza Jeep Eagle's percentage of satisfied customers was 75% for both preparation and delivery, compared to 96% on both measures in the national group. For June of 1990, Plaza Jeep Eagle's percentage of satisfied customers was 71% for preparation, compared to 97% for the national group, and 77% for delivery, compared to 96%. The Petitioner has established written, reasonable, and uniformly- applied standards with respect to performance of a dealership. These standards are published in the dealer sales and service agreements and related documents concerning a dealer's obligation with respect to customer satisfaction. The Petitioner has rejected other proposed applicants because of their failure to meet such standards. (TR- 42)
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order denying the Respondents' proposal to change the ownership of Lake. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Room B439, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esq. General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 Dean Bunch, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK, ET AL. 106 E. College Street Suite 700 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Lawrence J. Semento, Esq. STONE & SEMENTO P.O. Drawer 2048 Eustis, FL 32727 J. Robert Duggan, Esq. P.O. Box 490208 Leesburg, FL 34749
The Issue Whether Respondent is not providing adequate representation of STAR Neighborhood electric vehicles in the Volusia County area.
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 2007, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles (Department) issued Final Order No. HSMV-07-37-FOI-DMV, which provides in pertinent part: Pursuant to the requirements of section 320.642, Florida Statutes, JH Global Services, Inc. provided notice to the department of its intention to allow the establishment of Action Golf Cars, for the sale of STAR Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) at 940 N. US 1, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. In response to the properly filed notice, the department published the required notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 12, 2007. There are no other dealerships of the same line-make in Volusia County or other contiguous counties. It is therefore ORDERED That Action Golf Cars shall be granted a license at 940 N. US 1, Ormond Beach, Florida 32714, for the sale of STAR Neighborhood Electric vehicles (NEV) on or after this date, provided an application is received by the Division of Motor Vehicles, Regional Office, meeting all requirements for licensure . . . . The license for Action Golf Cars was issued by the Department May 11, 2007. On July 13, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population, stating that JG Global Services, Inc., intended to allow "the establishment of Bellen Brook, LLC d/b/a Tee Time Golf Cars as a dealership for the sale of Star Neighborhood electric vehicles (STAR) NEV at 1510 North Highway 1, Ormond (Volusia County), Florida 32174, on or after June 18, 2007." Section 320.642(1), Florida Statutes, requires that any licensee proposing to establish an additional motor vehicle dealership within a community where the same line-make vehicle is presently represented shall give written notice of its intention to the Department. The notice shall include, among other things, the identity of all motor vehicle dealers who are franchised to sell the same line-make vehicle with licensed locations in the county or any contiguous county to the county where the additional or relocated vehicle dealer is proposed to be located. Upon publication in the Florida Law Weekly, the Department is required to mail a copy of the notice to those dealers identified in the licensee's notice. Action Golf Cars did not receive the notice contemplated by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. On July 17, 2007, the Department issued Final Order No. HSMV-07-940-FOI-DMV, which states in pertinent part: Pursuant to the requirements of section 320.642, Florida Statutes, JH Global Services, Inc., provided notice to the Department of its intention to allow the establishment of Bellen Brook, LLC d/b/a Tee Time Golf Cars, for the sale of Star Neighborhood electric vehicles (STAR) NEV at 1510 North Highway 1, Ormond, Florida 32174. In response to the properly filed notice, the Department published the required notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 13, 2007. There are no other dealerships of the same line-make in Volusia County or other contiguous counties. It is therefore ORDERED That Bellen Brook, LLC d/b/a Tee Time Golf Cars shall be granted a license at 1510 North Highway 1, Ormond, Florida 32174, for the sale of Star Neighborhood electric vehicles (STAR) NEV on or after this date, provided an application is received meeting all requirements for licensure. . . . Notwithstanding JH Global Services, Inc.'s notice to the Department regarding Tee Time, on July 25, 2007, JH Global executed an agreement with Action Golf Cars which stated that Action Golf Car's territory would be Flagler and Volusia counties, and that "JH will not sell to other dealers located in this area directly without acknowledge [sic] of Action Golf Cars." The agreement further provided that If other dealers call from these two counties, JH will refer the business to Action Golf Cars. Action Golf Cars will sell to other dealers at the price of $200.00 more than the purchasing prices plus other direct cost associated with the car. Or, with Action Golf Cars's (sic) consent, JH may sell to other dealer directly, but have to give Action Golf Cars, Inc. credit for $200.00 for the cars sold. Bill Morgan, the owner of Action Golf Cars believed that he held the exclusive dealership for STAR cars for the Volusia/Flagler Counties area. Although he had purchased cars from JH Global in 2006, he did not have a written agreement until 2007. In late July, Bill Morgan saw STAR cars on the Tee Time premises. Tee Time is approximately three miles from Action Golf Cars. Mr. Morgan called JH Global and was told by representatives of the company that the STAR cars were purchased by Tee Time from an independent distributor in Georgia. Upon further investigation, Mr. Morgan learned of the notice regarding Tee Time receiving a license and called JH Global again. He was told that Tee Time was "very persistent." After this conversation, Mr. Morgan filed his complaint on behalf of Action Golf Cars with the Department, protesting the issuance of a license to Tee Time. Once Action Golf Cars filed its protest, JH Global refused to sell any more golf cars to Tee Time, and does not currently do so. Tee Time sent some golf cars back to JH Global, at Tee Times' expense, because if it could not service the vehicles (because of the inability to purchase parts), its representative did not want to sell the remaining stock. However, Tee Time wants the ability to sell STAR cars in the Volusia County area and believes it should be allowed to do so. Tee Time purchased six STAR cars in 2007. It sold two and sent back four. STAR cars are a relatively new product in the golf car market, having been first introduced in 2006. Each car costs a dealership approximately $4,000. In 2006, Action Golf Cars purchased approximately $58,600 worth of product from JH Global. In 2007, that amount increased to $135,523. In other words, in 2006, Action Golf Cars purchased approximately 14 STAR cars for resale. In 2007, it purchased an additional 33. Given the limited amount of time the product has been on the market, the impact of allowing Tee Time to sell STAR cars cannot be readily determined.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Tee Time's application for licensure. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 28th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Zhang JH Global Services, Inc. 52 Pelham Davis Circle Greenville, South Carolina 29615 Dale Sheppard Bellen Brook, LLC, d/b/a Tee Time Golf Cars 1510 North Highway 1 Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Bill Morgan Action Golf Cars 940 North US 1 Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 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 Nissan North America, Inc.'s (Nissan) rejection of the proposed transfer of the equity interest in Love Nissan, Inc. (Love), from Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen to Marilyn Halleen, is in violation of the laws regulating the licensing of motor vehicle dealers and manufacturers, maintaining competition, providing consumer protection and fair trade and providing minorities with opportunities for full participation as motor vehicle dealers, as set forth in Sections 320.61-320.70, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Nissan is a "licensee" as defined by Section 320.60(8), Florida Statutes. Love is a "motor vehicle dealer" as defined by Section 320.60(11)(a)1, Florida Statutes. Love serves a territory centered on Homosassa, Florida. Nissan and Love are parties to a Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (Agreement), which is an "agreement" or "franchise agreement," as defined by Section 320.60(1), Florida Statutes. Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen became owners of Love as the result of a 1999 gift of the equity of Love from Robert's father and Chad's grandfather. Subsequent to the donation, Robert became a 90 percent owner of Love and Chad became a ten percent owner. Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen entered into the Agreement with Nissan on March 4, 1999. Since that time Robert Halleen has served as the Dealer Principal and Principal Owner of Love Nissan, and Chad Halleen has served as the Executive Manager and Other Owner. The Agreement has never been amended. The Agreement clearly states that Nissan relied on the personal qualifications of the Principal Owner, Other Owner, and Executive Manager in entering into the Agreement. In addition to personal qualifications, the Agreement recites expertise, reputation, integrity, experience, and ability, as characteristics expected of the Principal Owner, Other Owner, and Executive Manager. Since Robert and Chad Halleen became owners of Love the dealership has never met the regional average sales penetration. The regional average sales penetration is the measurement used by Nissan to evaluate the sales performance of each of its dealers. Subsequent to the inception of the Agreement, Nissan has issued multiple Notices of Default to Love citing Love's poor sales performance. In an effort to facilitate Love's success, Nissan contracted their primary market area on several occasions. This and other efforts to bolster Love's performance failed. As a result, Nissan issued a Notice of Termination of the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement between itself and Love, dated April 1, 2004. This precipitated a protest and a formal hearing before Administrative Law Judge Ella Jane Davis who recommended that DHSMV dismiss the protest and ratify the Notice of Termination. As noted above, DHSMV has not issued a final order. Because it has not, and because an appeal could follow, Nissan has not yet entered into a franchise with a new dealer for the Homosassa primary market area. It is Nissan's intention to award the area to a qualified minority candidate. Eleven days after the issuance of Judge Davis's order, on July 25, 2005, Robert and Chad Halleen notified Nissan of their intent to sell all of their stock in Love to Marilyn Halleen. In a short letter to Nissan, the selling price was said to be $100 with an increase to $5,000,000 should the sale ultimately be made to a third party. The dealership, if sold on the open market, would bring much more than $100. It could sell for as much as five million dollars. The letter also averred that there would not be a change in the executive management. The decision to sell all of the stock in Love to Marilyn Halleen was made by Robert Halleen. Chad Halleen was instructed by his father to comply with his decision to sell and he did as instructed. Prior to the issuance of Judge Davis's Recommended Order, Robert and Chad Halleen decided that if the termination case had an unfavorable outcome, they would avoid it by selling Love to a family member. They attempted to give effect to this course of action by discussing with Robert Halleen's father the possibility of transferring ownership to him. Robert and Chad Halleen desired to keep the dealership in the family and to ensure that Chad remained employed. Pursuant to the contemplated transfer to Robert Halleen's father, Chad Halleen would continue as Executive Manager, which was also the case in the proposed transfer to Marilyn Halleen. The discussion with Robert Halleen's father did not ripen into a course of action. During their tenure at Love, Robert and Chad Halleen informally divided the operational responsibilities between themselves. Chad Halleen was primarily responsible for the sales department and Robert Halleen focused on supervising the day-to-day operations of the parts, service, and accounting departments. However, it is clear that Robert Halleen, has been since the inception of the Agreement, and was, at least up to the date of the formal hearing, in ultimate overall charge of all of the operations of Love. Robert Halleen asserted at the hearing that he would abandon his role in the management of Love. Love attempted to prove that Chad Halleen was capable of successfully managing the operation without the aid of his father. However, the evidence taken as a whole, indicated that he had never operated the dealership without the assistance of Robert Halleen and that he would have difficulty doing so without that assistance. Subsequent to the proposed transfer, the management of Love would, allegedly, consist of Marilyn Halleen and Chad Halleen. They would be, under the Agreement, the "executive management," which is the term used in the Agreement to describe the Dealer Principal and the Executive Manager. It is not necessary under the Agreement, for a Dealer Principal to be actively involved in the daily business of the dealership, and because a Dealer Principal may own dealerships in more than one geographical area, it is not unusual to find a Dealer Principal who is not active in the day-to-day management of dealerships she or he owns. However, in this case it is contemplated, and Marilyn Halleen has so stated, that she and Chad Halleen would operate the business together. Currently, Marilyn Halleen's participation in the operation of the dealership has been working as a bookkeeper in the accounting department. Marilyn Halleen stated that should the transfer be approved, she would make the decisions about running the dealership, how the dealership is capitalized, new car sales, used car sales, allocation and ordering, marketing, management of the parts and service departments, and all of the other myriad responsibilities incumbent on a manager of an automobile dealership. However, her work experience does not qualify her to successfully accomplish all of these tasks and this plan is contrary to the assertion in the notice to Nissan that there would be no change in executive management. Marilyn Halleen has never owned a dealership or any other business. Her management experience is limited to filling a position as an office manager in a Buick dealership many years ago. In various automobile dealerships she has worked as a title clerk, receptionist, cashier, and in a warranty department. Prior to becoming bookkeeper at Love she worked full-time selling cosmetics for Mary Kay. Nissan was unaware of the details of Marilyn Halleen's business experience, or lack of it, at the time they determined that they would reject the proposed transfer. However, the notice to Love that the proposed transfer was rejected, dated September 20, 2005, recited in the attachment that the rejection was based on Nissan's belief the transfer was a sham. Marilyn Halleen's lack of experience is evidence tending to prove that the transfer was a sham. To find as a fact that Robert and Chad Halleen were really going to give Marilyn Halleen complete ownership and control over Love would require a suspension of disbelief. Having observed the lackluster performance of Robert and Chad Halleen over a five-year period, Nissan reasonably concluded that Marilyn Halleen was unlikely to ramp up Love's performance. Although Section 320.943(2), Florida Statutes, does not require that a transfer of an equity interest be at arms- length, the fact that a purported transfer is not an arms-length transaction, when considered with other evidence, may tend to demonstrate, as it does in this case, that the purported transfer is a sham. The fact that the purchase price is remarkably below market value does not in every case mean that a purported transfer is a sham. Under the facts of this case, however, the below market sales price tends to prove that the purported transfer is illusory. The evidence, taken as a whole, proves that the purported transfer is an artifice or device designed to avoid the consequences of the poor performance of Love while under the command of Robert and Chad Halleen. Thus the proposed transfer is not a real transfer; it is a sham designed to avoid Judge Davis's Recommended Order upholding the termination. Marilyn Halleen, although a human being separate from her spouse and off-spring, cannot be considered "any other person or persons." She is the alter ego of Robert and Chad Halleen and, should the transfer be approved, the evidence demonstrates she will be a mere agent or tool of the current owners and the inept management of Love will continue. It was not proven that Marilyn Halleen lacked good character as that term is used in Section 320.643(2), Florida Statutes, which governs the transfer of an equity interest in a dealership. The question of whether or not the proposed transfer involved a change in executive management at Love, which might trigger consideration of Section 320.643(1) or 320.644, Florida Statutes, a question advanced by Nissan, at the hearing, and in Nissan's Proposed Recommended Order, need not be addressed for the reasons set forth in paragraph 23, above. In order for those sections to be invoked there must first be a valid transfer.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order stating that pursuant to Nissan's verified Petition for Determination of Invalid Proposed Transfer Pursuant to Section 320.643, Florida Statutes, and Notice of Rejection of Proposed Transfer, no transfer under Section 320.643, Florida Statutes, is proposed and Nissan's rejection of it was proper. Further, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles should enter a Final Order dismissing Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen's Petition for Determination of Wrongful Turndown. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 18th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 S. Keith Hutto, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP 1320 Main Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1267 John W. Forehand, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 125 South Gadsden Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1525 Alex Kurkin, Esquire Pathman Lewis, LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2400 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents' application to establish a dealership to sell motorcycles manufactured by Chongqing Astronautical Bashan Motorcycle Manufacturer Co., Ltd. (BASH line-make), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an “Official Notice of Protest – Petition for Determination” dated August 21, 2014, with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (HSMV). The protest/petition opposes Respondent’s noticed intention to establish a dealership to be called Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC, at 1431 South Woodland Boulevard, Deland (Volusia County), Florida. Notice of that intent was duly published in the Florida Administrative Register on August 29, 2014. (There was no explanation provided as to why Petitioner’s protest/petition was filed before the publication of the notice.) Petitioner’s protest/petition asserts that Respondent’s proposed new dealership will be located “within our territory.” Petitioner further asserts that Peace Industry Group is its “number two supplier of scooters, and represents 38% of our scooter sales.” Petitioner did not appear at final hearing or present any competent evidence to support these allegations. Respondent provided evidence suggesting that Petitioner has only purchased seven motor-scooters from Peace Industry Group. Petitioner did not appear at final hearing and present evidence as to its “standing to protest” as required by section 320.642(3), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2014 version.) Conversely, Respondent presented evidence that Petitioner’s dealership in Deland, Florida, has closed and gone out of business. This unrefuted evidence proves that Petitioner no longer has standing to protest Respondent’s proposed new dealership in the area. The propriety of Petitioner’s protest is the only issue in this proceeding. A petitioner without standing cannot pursue such a challenge.
Recommendation Based on 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 denying Petitioner, Navitas Financial Group, Inc., d/b/a Pompano Pats Deland's protest of Respondent's proposed new dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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, 2015. 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) Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-338 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 (eServed) Steve Hurm, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 (eServed) Meiredith Huang Peace Industry Group (USA), Inc. 2649 Mountain Industrial Boulevard Tucker, Georgia 30084 Patrick M. Johnson The Navitas Financial Group, Inc. 2075 South Woodland Boulevard Deland, Florida 32720 Jeff Rupp Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC 1861 Marysville Drive Deltona, Florida 32725 G. Michael Smith, Esquire Smith Collins, LLC 8565 Dunwoody Place Building 15 Atlanta, Georgia 30350 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether two applications for new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships filed by Puma Cycles Corporation and Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC (Respondents), should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the two applications filed by the Respondents to establish new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships at Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC, for the sale of line-make FSTI motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2012, 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 22nd day of February, 2012.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of a Recommended Order of Dismissal by Stuart M. Lerner, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order'. The Department hereby adopts the Recommended Order as its Final Order in this matter, Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner's, Palmetto Ford Truck Sales, Inc., complaint is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this b “ day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, / Carl. A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this Tah day of , 2009. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Zi. bins Lu: 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. Petitioners filed exceptions which are ruled on in the appendix to this order. Copies furnished: A. Edward Quinton, Il, Esquire Adams, Quinton & Paretti, P.A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 SW 8" Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 Dean Bunch, Esq. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Blvd., South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Stuart M. Lerner 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
