The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner manufactures and sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles to authorized Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealers. Ulm is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ulm sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 2966 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida 33607. Ferman is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ferman sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 24314 State Road 54, Lutz, Florida 33559. It is undisputed that Petitioner has had four dealers in the Tampa metro market for a significant number of years. Petitioner's primary competitors also have had four or more dealers in the Tampa metro market. By appointing North Tampa as a successor dealer to Bob Wilson Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Wilson), Petitioner seeks to maintain the status quo of four Chrysler dealers in the Tampa metro market. In April 2008, Petitioner had four dealers in the Tampa metro market that each sold and serviced Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The four dealers were: Ulm, Ferman, Courtesy Chrysler Jeep Dodge, and Wilson. On April 25, 2008, Wilson filed a Chapter 11 petition in United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida (the Bankruptcy Court). At or about the same time, Wilson closed its doors and ceased selling and servicing Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The filing of Wilson’s bankruptcy petition precipitated an automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The automatic stay prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson’s franchise and dealer agreements (dealer agreements). But for Wilson’s bankruptcy filing, Petitioner would have sent Wilson a notice of termination when Wilson closed its doors and ceased dealership operations. Wilson’s cessation of business adversely impacted Petitioner. In relevant part, Petitioner lost sales and lacked a necessary fourth dealer to provide service to Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge customers in the Tampa metro market. Petitioner desired to reopen a dealership at or close to the former Wilson location as soon as possible to mitigate or eliminate the economic loss. During the automatic stay, Petitioner was legally precluded from unilaterally appointing a successor dealer to Wilson. Wilson still had valid dealer agreements for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles and, therefore, was still a dealer. During the automatic stay, Wilson attempted to sell its existing dealership assets, including the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealer agreements. Any attempt by Petitioner to appoint a successor dealer or even negotiate with a successor dealer, would have undermined Wilson’s efforts to sell the dealerships and maximize the estate for the benefit of the creditors. A sale of the dealership required the consent of Wilson and Wilson’s largest creditor, Chrysler Financial. Petitioner did everything it could to accelerate a sale. However, Petitioner was not a party to the sale negotiations and had no ability to require or force Wilson to sell the dealership or its assets to any particular party or to do so within any particular time period. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner did anything to intentionally, or inadvertently, delay or manipulate the timing of a sale. On July 30, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay. The motion also sought the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner filed the motion in the Bankruptcy Court in an attempt to hasten the sale negotiations. Petitioner also wanted to be able to terminate the dealer agreements as quickly as possible in the event that a sale was not consummated. The Bankruptcy Court did not initially grant Petitioner's motion. The court wanted to allow time for a sale of the dealership to proceed. During 2008 and early 2009, Wilson continued to negotiate with potential buyers for the dealership. On January 8, 2009, Wilson's motor vehicle dealer license expired. It became apparent to Petitioner that a sale of Wilson’s assets would be unlikely. Petitioner again asked the Bankruptcy Court to grant Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. On February 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. However, the order did not terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. On February 16, 2009, within a week of the entry of the order lifting the stay, Petitioner sent Wilson a notice of intent to terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. Wilson received the notice of termination on February 23, 2009, and the termination became effective on March 10, 2009. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner attempted to manipulate or delay the timing of the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner began working on establishing a replacement dealership as soon as Wilson’s dealer agreements were terminated. Establishing a replacement dealership is a lengthy process that primarily involves finding a suitable dealer candidate, finding a suitable location and facility, and making sure that the candidate has the necessary capital to start and maintain the dealership. Petitioner talked to several potential candidates to replace the Wilson dealership, including Jerry Ulm, the principal of one of the complaining dealers in these cases. By letter dated June 24, 2009, Mr. Ulm advised Petitioner that he opposed the opening of a successor dealership for anyone else but wanted the successor dealership for himself should Petitioner decide to proceed. Petitioner determined that Petitioner would not be able to locate the successor dealership at the former Wilson facility. Petitioner considered several potential alternative locations for the successor dealership, including property offered by Ferman. Ferman had a vacant site on Fletcher Avenue in Tampa, Florida, which Ferman leased from a third party unrelated to this proceeding. Ferman offered to sublease the property to Petitioner. In a letter to Petitioner's real estate agent dated July 17, 2009, Ferman stated Ferman's understanding that Petitioner intended to use the property to establish a Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealership. Petitioner ultimately decided to locate the dealership at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. It is undisputed that this location is less than two miles from the former Wilson location. Before establishing the successor dealership, however, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Department on February 5, 2010 (the letter). The letter requested the Department to confirm that the establishment of the successor dealership would be exempt under Subsection 320.642(5)(a)1. from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3). The letter explained that Wilson had filed bankruptcy and ceased operations and that the bankruptcy had prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson and appointing a successor dealership. The letter also provided the relevant dates of the bankruptcy, the lifting of the stay, and the termination of Wilson dealer agreements and advised the Department of Petitioner's intent to locate the successor dealership within two miles of Wilson’s former location. The letter asked the Department to confirm that the establishment of a successor dealership would be exempt if it was established within one year of March 10, 2009, when Petitioner terminated the Wilson dealer agreements. By separate e-mails dated February 9 and 12, 2010, the Department twice confirmed that it had consulted with counsel and determined that the establishment of a successor dealership to Wilson in the manner outlined by Petitioner would be exempt. Petitioner relied on this confirmation by the Department before proceeding with the appointment of a successor dealership. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner sent a second letter to the Department, stating Petitioner's intention to appoint North Tampa as the replacement and successor dealer for Wilson (the second letter). In the second letter, Petitioner again asserted its understanding that the establishment of North Tampa was exempt from the relevant statutory requirements for notice and protest. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner also submitted to the Department an application for a motor vehicle dealer license for North Tampa. On March 3, 2010, the Department issued a license to North Tampa for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On March 7, 2010, North Tampa opened for business. North Tampa has operated successfully and continuously and employs approximately 30 individuals at the site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the establishment of North Tampa as a successor motor vehicle dealer is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3) pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 2010.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by June C. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s letter of withdrawal of protest of the establishment of AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc., 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. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent, AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc. be granted a license for the sale and service of Chrysler passenger cars and light trucks (CHRY) 13601 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines (Broward County), Florida 33027 upon Filed January 27, 2012 3:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings compliance with all applicable requirements of section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. DONE AND ORDERED this 2 q day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Michael D. Le Assistant Deputy Director Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this _A\\__ day of January, 2012. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Hicense 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. MDM/jde Copies furnished: Thomas H. Yardley, Esquire Law Office of Thomas H. Yardley 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building D Cocoa, Florida 32922 Phil Langley Chrysler Motors, LLC 10300 Boggy Creek Road Orlando, Florida 32824 R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS MASSEY-YARDLEY CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 11-6491 CHRYSLER GROUP CARCO, LLC, AND AUTONATION DODGE OF PEMBROKE PINES, INC., Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the demeanor of the witnesses, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent T.A.S. Auto Sales held independent motor vehicle license #6VI-2652, with a licensed place of business at 117 1/2 Central Avenue in Brandon, Florida. The owner of T.A.S. Auto Sales is Donald Hunt. On May 1, 1985, the Division of Motor Vehicles issued license number 5VI-003620A to T.A.S. Auto Sales for a supplemental location at 312 East Brandon Boulevard in Brandon, Florida. The expiration date on this license was April 30, 1986. Donald Hunt leased the property at 312 East Brand on Boulevard and operated a retail car sales business there until approximately mid-June of 1985. He then decided to sell the business to Clarence W. Jenkins, and entered into an Assignment of Lease on July 1, 1985. According to Mr. Hunt, it was his intent to allow Mr. Jenkins to operate under the supplemental license of T.A.S. Auto Sales while Mr. Jenkins, doing business as Brandon Auto Brokers, obtained his own Florida Dealers License. However, according to Mr. Hunt, said arrangement was to terminate no later than July 28, 1985. A letter setting forth this agreement was received into evidence as respondent's Exhibit 4. From July 1, 1985, through July 28, 1985, Donald Hunt did supervise all title work performed through Brandon Auto Brokers and/or Mr. Jenkins. During July and early August, 1985, Brandon Auto Brokers secured a County occupational license, a Department of Revenue Certificate of Registration to collect sales and use taxes, a reassignment of telephone numbers, an insurance binder, a surety bond and membership in the Florida Independent Automobile Dealers Association. Signage indicating either Brandon Auto Brokers or "under new management" was also placed on the premises, but the date upon which such signage was erected was not established. Lois Jarvis, an inspector with the Division of Motor Vehicles, testified that she spoke on the telephone with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Jenkins on August 9, 1985, and thereafter mailed to Mr. Jenkins an application form for a dealer's license. It was Inspector Jarvis' understanding that Mr. Hunt was allowing Jenkins to operate under Mr. Hunt's supplemental license until such time as Jenkins obtained his own license. On September 4, 1985, she visited the supplemental lot to check on Mr. Jenkins' incomplete application. Her next visit with either Mr. Hunt or Mr. Jenkins occurred on September 23, 1985. At that time, while at Mr. Hunt's lot on Central Avenue, Mr. Hunt informed her that he had nothing more to do with the supplemental lot on Brand on Boulevard, and gave Ms. Jarvis his license for that location. Inspector Jarvis then went over to the supplemental lot and issued a Notice of Violation to Mr. Jenkins/Brandon Auto Brokers for offering, displaying for sale and selling motor vehicles without a license. On September 24, 1985, Ms. Jarvis requested the Department to cancel dealer license 5VI-3620A on the ground that "dealer closed lot and surrendered license." Mrs. Jarvis testified that she did not visit either the supplemental lot or the main lot in July or August of 1985. Her work records for July and August do not reflect a visit to either location. Mr. Hunt, and several witnesses testifying in respondent's behalf, testified that he told Inspector Jarvis in early July that he would have nothing more to do with the supplemental lot beyond July 28, 1985. It was their testimony that Mrs. Jarvis' response was that "there was no way Mr. Jenkins could be issued a license by July 28th, to which Mr. Hunt responded, "that's not my problem." Mr. Hunt admits that he did not specifically request Mrs. Jarvis to cancel his license for the supplemental lot as of July 28th, and that he did not deliver that license to Mrs. Jarvis until September 23, 1985. Based upon the demeanor and possible motives of the witnesses, as well as the documentary evidence received into evidence, it is concluded that Inspector Jarvis did not visit either the supplemental lot or the main lot for which T.A.S. held licenses in June, July or August of 1985. It is further found that Inspector Jarvis did not become aware that Mr. Hunt intended to cease all relationships with the supplemental lot until he delivered the license for those premises to her on September 23, 1985. By statute, an independent motor vehicle license period is from May 1 to April 30 of the following year. Licenses expire annually, "unless revoked or suspended prior to that date." Section 320.27(4), Florida Statutes. The Department has no rule, regulation, policy or established procedure for a licensee to surrender or cancel a license prior to the expiration date. On July 30, 1985, Bruce Reich purchased a 1980 Chevrolet Camero from the Jenkins at the supplemental lot. His checks were made payable to Brandon Auto Brokers. He did not think he was buying a car from T.A.S. or from Don Hunt. On or about September 30, 1985, Mr. Reich filed a Complaint Affidavit against Brandon Auto Brokers regarding this transaction. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Reich had still not received title to the vehicle he purchased. On August 26, 1985, William S. Ryder purchased a 1981 Van from the Jenkins at the supplemental lot. On or about October 2, 1985, Mr. Ryder filed a Complaint Affidavit against T.A.S. Auto Sales on the ground that he had not received a clear title or plates for this vehicle. He had previously attempted to locate Mr. Jenkins, but was unable to find him.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0471 The proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner 8. Rejected; the evidence demonstrates that respondent intended that its responsibilities with regard to the supplemental lot would terminate on July 28, 1985. Respondent 1 - 3. Rejected in part as improper findings of fact. 4 - 9A. Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 9H. Accepted, except that the evidence demonstrates that the Ryder complaint named T.A.S. Auto Sales as the dealer. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Neil Kirkman Building Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Michael N. Kavouklis, Esquire 419 West Platt Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Leonard R. Mellon, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application to establish a dealership to sell motorcycles manufactured by JMSTAR Motorcycle Company should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida-limited liability company located in Pinellas County, Florida.1 Petitioner is in the business of selling motorcycles and motorscooters. In February 2009, Petitioner submitted to DHSMV a letter of intent to establish A1 Motorscooters.com, LLC, as a new dealership for the purpose of selling JMSTAR motorscooters. Notice of that intent was duly published in the February 27, 2009, FAW, Volume 35, Number 8. In its letter of intent to DHSMV, Petitioner did not list Respondent as a dealer with standing to protest its letter of intent. That was due to the fact that Respondent did not appear on the list of licensed dealers provided to Petitioner by DHSMV (as will be discussed more fully herein). Respondent is a Florida-limited liability company doing business in Pinellas County, Florida. It sells different makes of motorcycles. On June 4, 2009, Respondent was made aware of Petitioner's letter of intent (some 98 days after Petitioner's Notice was published). Respondent immediately filed a protest, stating that Respondent was "approved" to sell the same line of motorcycles and that Respondent "just received [their] license and began selling several months ago." In October 2008, Respondent received a Final Order from DHSMV approving Respondent as a dealer for the JMSTAR line of motorcycles. That Final Order gave Respondent a preliminary approval to sell JMSTAR motorcycles, but only upon completion of the application process and issuance of a license by the Department. Respondent's license was, ultimately, issued effective April 21, 2009. Thus, at the time of the FAW Notice as to Petitioner's new dealership, Respondent had been preliminarily approved, but was not a licensed dealer of JMSTAR motorcyles. Respondent had a prior agreement with SunL Group, Inc. ("SunL"), to sell motorcycles as a franchisee or independent contractor. Under that arrangement, Respondent could sell various kinds of motorcycles, including the JMSTAR line. At some point in time, the agreement between SunL and Respondent was terminated. Further, SunL's dealership license was revoked by DHSMV on June 5, 2009. SunL was not a party to this proceeding, and no one appeared on its behalf. When Petitioner filed its letter of intent with DHSMV, it asked for and received a list of all authorized dealers of JMSTAR motorcycles so that those dealers could be appropriately notified. DHSMV provided a list to Petitioner. Respondent was not on the list because, at that time, Respondent was not yet a licensed dealer of JMSTAR motorcyles. (Apparently SunL was a licensed dealer and could have protested Petitioner's letter of intent, but there is no evidence that it did so.) Respondent did not provide any credible testimony or other competent evidence at final hearing as to the impact of Petitioner's proposed dealership on Respondent, nor were any of the review criteria set forth in Florida Statutes concerning the approval or denial of a new dealership discussed by either party.
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 Respondent, ECO Green Machine, LLC's, protest of Petitioner, A1 Motorscooter.com, LLC's, proposed dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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, 2010.
The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether Respondent committed a myriad of violations of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, which provides certain requirements applicable to motor vehicle dealers. The violations alleged to have been committed by Respondent are inclusive of failures to display a consumer sales window form, to keep certain records of purchases and sales, to keep proper records of temporary tags, and not possessing required proper proof of ownership of two vehicles. In the event that Respondent committed these violations, an additional issue is what administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the business of buying, selling, or dealing in motor vehicles or offering or displaying motor vehicles for sale. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed independent motor vehicle dealer in Florida, having been issued license number VI-13051. Petitioner issued the license based upon an application signed by Sudarshan Kuthiala, as President. Respondent's address of record is 5895 St. Augustine Road, Suite No. 8, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Respondent's president is Sudarshan Kuthiala. On or about March 12, 2004, Petitioner's compliance examiner conducted an annual records inspection of Respondent's dealership. The purpose of that inspection was to determine whether the dealership was complying with statutory and rule requirements. Arrangements to conduct the inspection were made at least a week ahead of time. At the time of the March 12, 2004 inspection, the compliance examiner found that Respondent did not have the "Buyer's Guide" required by federal law and known as a “consumer sales window form,” properly displayed on a vehicle, a 1995 Nissan, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 1N6SD16S25C386012, being offered for sale by Respondent. Also, during the March 12, 2004 inspection, the compliance examiner reviewed five purchases and sales of motor vehicles made by Respondent. The examiner discovered that records of two of the vehicles involved did not contain any documentation of the method or proof of purchase or the required odometer disclosure statement at time of acquisition. Another of the vehicles did not have the odometer disclosure statement upon its disposition. An examination during the March 12, 2004 inspection of Respondent's temporary tag log found that the log was incomplete. Respondent's temporary tag log did not include the name and address of the person to whom a temporary tag for a vehicle had been assigned. A follow-up inspection of Respondent's dealership was conducted on June 23, 2004. An appointment for that inspection was made at least one week ahead of time. In the course of that June 23, 2004 inspection, Petitioner's examiner discovered Respondent did not display the required "Buyer's Guide" or “consumer sales window form” required by federal law on a 1992 Mercury automobile with VIN 1MEPM6043NH616615, being offered by Respondent for sale. Further, Respondent's records did not contain the odometer disclosure statement of that vehicle when it was acquired. Additionally, Respondent did not have a title or other proof of ownership of the 1992 Mercury automobile. During the June 23, 2004 inspection, Petitioner's examiner also discovered that records of three purchases and sales of motor vehicles made by Respondent were deficient. Records for two of the vehicles did not have the method or proof of purchase or odometer disclosure statement upon acquisition. Records for one of the vehicles did not have the required odometer disclosure statement upon disposition of the vehicle. The June 23, 2004 inspection also revealed that Respondent's temporary tag log was incomplete. The log did not reveal the name and address of a person to whom a temporary tag was issued or the vehicle identification number of the vehicle for which the temporary tag was issued. Following both of the inspections recounted above, neither Sudarshan Kuthiala nor anyone else on behalf of Respondent offered to provide the missing records or account for them. In the course of attendance at training school for dealers, Sudarshan Kuthiala was informed of the required forms and the process for their preparation. Also, Respondent's records have been inspected in the past and recordkeeping requirements further explained to Kuthiala.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sudarshan K. Kuthiala 2961 Bernice Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Fred O. Dickinson, III, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to the specific exemption in Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes, from the general notice and protest provisions in Section 320.642.
Findings Of Fact Landmark Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a A1 Mandel Chevrolet ("Landmark") operated a Chevrolet dealership located at 15455 West Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida until August 2, 1989. Landmark operated the dealership pursuant to: (a) a Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (the "Dealer Agreement") between Landmark and Petitioner; and (b) a Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer License from Respondent, License Number 9VF-10574. On August 2, 1989, Landmark ceased customary sales and service business operations. Respondent revoked Landmark's license on October 12, 1989. The license revocation resulted from an independent investigation conducted by Respondent. Petitioner notified Landmark on August 17, 1989, of Petitioner's intent to terminate the Dealer Agreement pursuant to Section 320.641, Florida Statutes. A copy of the notice of intent to terminate was furnished to Respondent in accordance with the requirements of Section 320.641. Landmark filed a Complaint with Respondent on November 15, 1989, contesting Petitioner's termination of the Dealer Agreement. The Complaint invoked the protection of Section 320.641, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 320.641(7), Petitioner was prohibited from terminating the Dealer Agreement prior to a final adjudication in the franchise cancellation proceeding. Landmark's Complaint was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 6, 1989. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. Petitioner's motion to dismiss was granted in a recommended order entered by Hearing Officer Michael Parrish on January 22, 1990. A final order dismissing Landmark's Complaint was entered by Respondent on April 30, 1990. The time for appealing the final order expired on May 30, 1990, without appeal. Petitioner notified Respondent on December 5, 1990, of Petitioner's intent to open a successor dealer for Landmark. Respondent determined in a letter dated December 19, 1990, that the proposed opening of the successor dealer was not exempt from the notice and protest provisions of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. Respondent determined that the 12 month period of exemption began to run on October 12, 1989, when Landmark's license was revoked and expired prior to the date of the proposed opening of the successor dealer. Petitioner had no prior notice of either Respondent's intent to revoke Landmark's license or the actual revocation of Landmark's license. Petitioner first learned of Respondent's revocation of Landmark's license on December 19, 1990. At that time, Respondent notified Petitioner that the 12 month period of exemption from protest had expired for purposes of the proposed opening of the successor dealer in North Miami Beach. Respondent's determination that the 12 month period of exemption in Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes, began on the date that Landmark's license was revoked constituted incipient agency action. The incipient agency action taken by Respondent deviated from Respondent's prior practice. Respondent's action determined the substantial interests of Petitioner. Petitioner was prohibited by Section 320.641(7), Florida Statutes, from opening a successor dealer pursuant to Section 320.642(5) until a final adjudication was entered in the franchise cancellation proceeding under Section 320.641. Landmark's license was revoked on October 12, 1989. The franchise cancellation proceeding began on November 15, 1989, when the Landmark filed its complaint. A final order was entered in the franchise cancellation proceeding on April 30, 1990. The time for appeal expired on May 30, 1990. Petitioner did not notify Respondent of Petitioner's intent to open a successor dealer until December 5, 1990. Proposed Rule 15C-7.004 was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 16, at page 1721, on April 19, 1991. Proposed Rule 15C-7.004(4)(a) provides: Application for Reopening or Successor Dealership, or for Relocation of Existing Dealership. If the license of an existing franchised motor vehicle dealer-is revoked for any reason, or surrendered, an application for a license to permit the reopening of the same dealer or a successor dealer within twelve months of the license revocation or surrender shall not be considered the establishment of an additional dealership if one of the conditions set forth in Section 320.642(5) is met by the proposed dealer. (emphasis added)4 Proposed Rule 15C-7.004(4)(a) was published prior to the formal hearing but will not become effective until after the formal hearing.5 Respondent's determination in this proceeding, that a closing occurs upon the revocation or surrender of a dealer's license, is consistent with Proposed Rule 15C-7.004(4) (a).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order should be entered denying Petitioner's request for an exemption from protest under Section 320.642(5), Florida Statues, for the proposed opening of a successor dealership. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of July, 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1991.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by R. Bruce McKibben, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s request for withdrawal, 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. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed June 14, 2011 10:27 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this /O day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sandra C. Lambert, Interim Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the pivisionof Motor Vehicles this_7 day of June, 2011. 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. SCLijdc Copies furnished: John Drier Scoot, Inc. 1819 Wharf Road Sarasota, Florida 34231 Lynnette Pagnini Johnny Pag Com., Inc. 5820 Central Avenue, Unit 230 Riverside, California 92504 R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Suzanne Van Wyk, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the Parties’ Settlement Stipulation and Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, 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. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed June 20, 2013 10:33 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this ee) day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MELawenbaak. Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this ad. day of June, 2013. 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. JB/jde Copies furnished: Lynette Whitehurst, Esquire Blanchard, Merriam, Adel and Kirkland, P.A. Post Office Box 1869 Ocala, Florida 34478 lwhitehurst@bmaklaw.com eroreerrre rarer ee seiseG ; ASYS } Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Suzanne Van Wyk Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF MOTORIST SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 13-0723 TANOS AUTO SALES, INC., Respondent. ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This cause having come before the undersigned on the joint Settlement Stipulation and Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. The final hearing scheduled for June 21, 2013, is canceled. 2. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Un Wit SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 18th day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dock A. Blanchard, Esquire Blanchard, Merriam, Adel and Kirkland, P.A. Post Office Box 1869 Ocala, Florida 34478 Lynette Whitehurst, Esquire Blanchard, Merriam, Adel and Kirkland, P.A. Post Office Box 1869 Ocala, Florida 34478 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 mikealderman@flhsmv.gov STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Petitioner, Case No.: 13-0723 v. TANOS AUTO SALES, INC., Respondent. / SETTLEMENT STIPULATION AND MOTION TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION Petitioner, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and Respondent, Tanos Auto Sales, Inc., stipulate and agree to a settlement of this matter and move for relinquishment of jurisdiction for the purpose of entering a Final Order of the Department incorporating this Settlement Stipulation in the above-styled matter, as follows: 1. Petitioner agrees to dismiss the Administrative Complaint with prejudice. 2. Respondent agrees to a non-renewal of his motor vehicle dealer license for the period of May 1, 2013 through May 31, 2013. 3. Respondent agrees to pay an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), within 30 days of the date of the Final Order. 4. If Respondent pays the amount specified in paragraph three above within the specified time, the Department will impose no further penalties or sanctions against Respondent. However, if Respondent fails to pay the amount specified in paragraph three above on or before the date provided in the Final Order, on the day following the payment date specified, Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license will be automatically suspended and Respondent will cease to do business as a motor vehicle dealer. 5. If after suspension for failure to pay the fine, as provided for in paragraph four, Respondent pays the amount specified in paragraph three above within 30 days following the date of suspension, its motor vehicle dealer license will immediately be reinstated without further penalties or sanctions. However, if Respondent fails to pay the amount due by the 30" day following the date of suspension, on the 31" day following the date of suspension Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license shall be revoked by the Department without further notice. 6. If the Department suspends or revokes Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license for non-payment as specified in paragraphs four and five above, said suspension or revocation shall be without recourse to the Respondent and Respondent hereby expressly waives any right to appeal or otherwise contest the suspension and revocation. 7. It is expressly understood that this Settlement Stipulation has no force and effect until the Department enters a Final Order adopting same. 8. Respondent and the Department fully understand that this Settlement Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Department against Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detailed in the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter. 9. Respondent and the Department expressly waive all further procedural steps and Respondent expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review of or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Settlement Stipulation and the Final Order of the Department. 10. Respondent and the Department each waives the right to seek any attorney’s fees or costs from the other party in connection with this administrative proceeding. WHEREFORE, the parties move the Administrative Law Judge for the entry of an order returning jurisdiction of this matter to the Department. de Signed this day of , 2013 Signed this ‘7 day of _~Swt@ __, 2013. Mich’ i Deputy General Counsel Florida Bar No. 0242357 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida, 32399 Attorney for Petitioner Ismail Osman, President Tanos Auto Sales, Inc. ~ : Signed this \-] day of (ane _, 2013. - am te Lynetté Whitehurst, Esquire Florida Bar No. 092145 Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A. Post Office Box 1869 Ocala, Florida 34478 Attorney for Respondent oO
