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 issues for determination are whether, as General Motors Corporation contends in its notice letter to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the "Department"), the proposed relocation of Big Oaks Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. ("Big Oaks") is exempt from the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a), which provides that relocations within two miles of its existing dealership location are not to be considered an additional motor vehicle dealership, or whether, as Petitioners contend, the relocation is to a site more than two miles from the existing dealership, the proposed relocation constitutes an additional dealership, and the proposed action may only be taken after fulfilling the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying, review of the Transcript and review of the exhibits in evidence and the pleadings contained in the file, the following relevant and material facts are found. Respondent, Big Oaks, is a franchised motor vehicle dealer, owning and operating an existing dealership situated on a four and one-half-acre tract of land and seeks to relocate the dealership to a twenty-acre tract of land pursuant to the exemption provided in Subsection 320.642(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Big Oaks' existing dealership is located at 255 West Van Fleet Drive, Bartow, Florida, where all of its business, service, and operational functions are conducted. Big Oaks proposes to relocate its dealership to a twenty-acre site situated and abutting U.S. Highway 98, in Bartow, Florida, north of the present location. All dealership business functions are to be conducted on the proposed site. To qualify for relocation pursuant to the exemption provision stated above, Big Oaks must relocate by a straight- line measurement within two miles of its existing location. Big Oaks measured the distance of the two-mile exemption by starting at the nearest point of its existing four and one-half-acre tract of land nearest to the proposed site and going in a straight line to the nearest point on the twenty-acre tract of land. This method of measurement, nearest point on existing tract to nearest proposed point of the proposed tract, resulted in a computed distance of 9,995 feet or 1.89 miles. (Exhibit R-3) Petitioners, Regal Lakeland and Cannon Automotive Group, Inc., are franchised motor vehicle dealers, owners and operators of same-line dealerships, and competitors with Big Oaks. Petitioners opposed Big Oaks' relocation, contending that the proposed relocation is not within the two-mile exemption provision provided by Subsection 320.642(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners, using a two-mile straight-line method of measurement from existing dealership site to proposed dealership site (Exhibit P-B), selected four different starting points on the existing site to four different points on the proposed site with the following results: starting at the furthest point of Big Oaks' existing site and measuring to the furthest point of Big Oaks' proposed site resulted in a distance of 2.28 miles; starting at the nearest point of Big Oaks' existing site and measuring to the nearest point of Big Oaks' proposed site resulted in a distance of 1.89 miles; starting at the center of Big Oaks' existing main building and measuring to the center of Big Oaks' proposed showroom building resulted in a distance of 2.20 miles; and starting at the center drive into Big Oaks' existing site and measuring to the center drive of Big Oaks' proposed access road resulted in a distance of 2.04 miles. Petitioners contend that a "center-point-to-center- point" method of measurement to measure the two-mile relocation exemption should be used. Starting at the center-point of Big Oaks' existing building on the existing site and measuring to the center-point of a proposed "showroom" building on Big Oaks' proposed relocation site (Exhibit P-B) as shown on the site plan, Petitioners' center-point-to-center-point method of measuring resulted in a distance of 2.11 miles. The parties are in agreement that neither the Florida Statutes nor the Florida Administrative Code adopted by the Department provide guidance for measurement of the two-mile exemption concerning relocation from an existing parcel of land to a proposed parcel of land, each of different size and shape. The results of Big Oaks' proposed method of measuring the two-mile exemption and the results of Petitioners' several methods of measuring the two-mile exemption demonstrate the need for an objective and all-inclusive method of measurement, one that when applied will result in a measurement of the current exemption relocation application and measurement of future exemption relocation applications in an equal and all-inclusive manner. At the request of the undersigned, the parties submitted exhibits (Court Exhibit A, composite) depicting an encircled center-point land tract to encircled center-point land tract method to measure the "within 2 miles" exemption. The measurement process is as follows: identify the geographical center of the existing land tract site from the land survey corner marker1 and encircle the land tract of the existing dealership site; draw a two-mile straight-line radius2 in the direction of the proposed relocation land tract site; identify the geographical center of the proposed land tract from the land survey corner maker and encircle the proposed land tract dealership site; and should any part of the encircled proposed site extend beyond the two-mile straight-line radius, the proposed relocation site is not "within 2 miles" of its existing land site location3. Should the encircled proposed site not extend beyond the two-mile straight-line radius, the proposed relocation is "within 2 miles" of its existing location. Accordingly, and in accordance with the above encircled center-point to encircled center-point method of measurement, Big Oaks' relocation to the proposed site herein above identified is not "within 2 miles" of Big Oaks' existing dealership site and, therefore, does not meet the limiting condition for the relocation exemption.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order DISMISSING the Protests filed in this cause as premature, and ORDER the proposed additional dealership be noticed as required by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 day of August, 2002.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether an application for motor vehicle dealer licenses filed by SunL Group, Inc., and Auto Stop, Inc., d/b/a Motorsports Depot, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that Scooter Depot has a franchise agreement to sell or service Chunl Motorcycle Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (CHUA) motor vehicles, a line-make to be sold by Motorsports Depot. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that Scooter Depot has a franchise agreement to sell or service Shanghai Meitan Motorcycle Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (MEIT) motor vehicles, a line-make to be sold by Motorsports Depot. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Scooter Depot dealership is physically located so as to meet the statutory requirements for standing to protest the establishment of the new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order dismissing the protests filed by Mobility Tech, Inc., d/b/a Charlie's Scooter Depot, in these cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Mei Zhou SunL Group, Inc. 8551 Ester Boulevard Irving, Texas 75063 Carlos Urbizu Mobility Tech, Inc., d/b/a Charlie’s Scooter Depot 5720 North Florida Avenue, Unit 2 Tampa, Florida 33604 Robert L. Sardegna Auto Shop, Inc., d/b/a Motorsports Depot 17630 US 41 North Lutz, Florida 33549 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 2010, a Notice of Hearing setting the date, time and location of final hearing was issued in this case. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to the last known, valid addresses of the Petitioners, which were also the addresses provided in Petitioners' Notice of Publication. Neither Notice of Hearing was returned. This cause came on for hearing as noticed. After waiting more than 15 minutes, Petitioners failed to appear to prosecute their claim. There has been no communication from the Petitioners, before, during, or since the hearing to indicate that they would not be attending the final hearing. Because of Petitioners' failure to appear, there was no evidence to demonstrate that Petitioners are entitled to a franchise motor vehicle dealership in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Absent such evidence, the establishment of the proposed dealership should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles denying the establishment of Petitioners' proposed franchise. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Dan Rhoad Ruff and Tuff Electric Vehicles, Inc. 1 Ruff Tuff Drive Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180 Thomas B. Waldrop Electric Cart Company, LLC 5480 US Highway 98 West Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Rachel Miller Hampton Ruff and Tuff, Inc. 230 South West Hollywood Boulevard Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Steve Hurm, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to motor vehicle dealerships that are proposed to be located in Orange County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Notices of Publication, Respondent's protest letters which were forwarded to DOAH, and the testimony presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is an existing franchised dealer for motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Company, Ltd. Petitioners have proposed the establishment of new dealerships to sell the same line-make of motorcycles as those sold by Respondent. Respondent's dealership is located at 3838 John Young Parkway, Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Petitioners' dealerships are proposed to be located in Orange County, Florida, at: 4535 34th Street, Orlando, Florida (Case No. 09-3489); and 2650 West Fairbanks Avenue, Winter Park, Florida (Case Nos. 09-3499 and 09-4750). The proposed dealerships are within a 12.5-mile radius of Respondent's dealership. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of the proposed dealerships. No evidence was presented showing that Respondent was "not providing adequate representation" of the same line-make vehicles in the community or territory.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the establishment of Petitioners' proposed franchise dealerships for Case Nos. 09-3489, 09-3499, and 09-4750. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Jude A. Mitchell Jude's Cycle Service Post Office Box 585574 Orlando, Florida 32858 Beverly Fox Red Streak Scooters, LLC 427 Doughty Boulevard Inwood, New York 11096 Randy Lazarus Scooter City USA, LLC 4535 34th Street Orlando, Florida 32811 Bobbette Lynott Classic Motorcycles and Sidecars, Inc. Post Office Box 969 Preston, Washington 98050 Lou Ronka Scooter City USA, LLC 2650 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, JSL Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Ft. Lauderdale Mitsubishi (JSL), is entitled to relocate its motor vehicle dealership.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner MMSA is a distributor and licensee of motor vehicles as defined by Section 320.60, Florida Statutes. Compared to other established licensees, MMSA is a relative newcomer to the market in Broward County, Florida. Nevertheless MMSA is emerging as a brand able to effectively compete in the segments in which it offers vehicles. Motor vehicle sales are divided into segments so that new car registrations may be tracked by popularity and dealer performance may be compared as to the vehicles it sells and not with those against which it cannot compete. For example, Mitsubishi does not compete in the truck market as it does not offer a new truck for sale. Therefore, Mitsubishi dealers are not expected to effectively compete in the new truck market. MMSA does, however, offer a vehicle to compete in the following segments: basis small (Mirage), lower middle (Galant), upper middle (Diamante), sporty coupe (Eclipse/Spyder), sports car (3000 GT/Spyder), middle SUV (Montero Sport), and upper middle SUV (Montero). As to all of these segments, MMSA has experienced a significant growth in sales in Broward County, Florida. Historically, there were only two franchised Mitsubishi dealers in Broward County. One of those dealerships is the Petitioner JSL. The other long-time Mitsubishi dealer is located to the north of the Petitioner JSL. That dealer is identified in this record as Lighthouse Point. Principal owners of the Respondent King also own the Lighthouse Point dealership. The Petitioner JSL is a franchised motor vehicle dealer fully authorized to lease, sell, and service the product of MMSA. The Petitioner JSL is located at 200 East Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Petitioner JSL has always been located at its current address. The former owner of the franchise owns the real estate and JSL rents the land and facilities in order to conduct its business. The current owners of the Petitioner JSL purchased the dealership in 1997/1998. The lease with the former owner will expire in the next few years and it is the Petitioners’ goal to relocate the dealership to a more modern, larger facility. If unable to relocate, however, the Petitioner could extend its lease with the former owner until approximately 2012. The condition of the property as well as the terms of the lease were known to the Petitioner JSL at the time it elected to purchase the dealership. Because it does not own the facility, the Petitioner JSL has few incentives to improve the physical appearance of the dealership. Thus far it has done little more than paint the buildings. Both the Petitioner JSL and Lighthouse Point are located in the eastern portion of Broward County. The Respondents King and Seidle are also franchised motor vehicle dealers fully authorized to lease, sell, and service the product of MMSA. These dealerships are located in the western portion of the county. The Respondent King's dealership is located at 4950 North State Road 7, Coconut Creek, Florida. The Respondent Seidle's dealership is located at 5395 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. The population growth in Broward County over the last five years is predominantly in the western portion of the county. The areas west of the Petitioner’s dealership have mushroomed in growth both in households and numbers of drivers. Employment and incomes have also increased. As an emerging brand seeking to capitalize on the growth opportunities in the western portion of the county, the Petitioner MMSA encouraged two existing franchised dealers (the Respondents herein) to open new point dealerships in the western portion of Broward County. Consequently, the Respondent King built and opened a new point dealership in the northwest quadrant of the county. This new dealership opened in 1998 and has thus far proven to be a successful franchise. Despite its investment of more than three million dollars (some of which might be allocated to another dealer) in the acquisition, construction, and opening of the dealership, this Respondent has already established itself as the leading sales franchise in the county. Similarly the Respondent Seidle was offered a new point in the southwest quadrant of the county. It acquired, and with MMSA’s help, constructed, and opened its new franchise dealership in March of 2000. The sales data for this dealer is limited due to its recent opening. Based upon conservative estimates, however, it is expected that this new dealership will prove successful at its location. Like the Respondent King, the Respondent Seidle spent in excess of a million dollars in order to open its new point. Unlike the dealership Mr. Seidle owns in Miami, the new point in Davie is considered state of the art in design and function. It is projected that the Davie dealership will perform more successfully than the Miami Seidle dealership. When both King at Coconut Creek and Seidle at Davie were proposed the Respondents assumed they would be the only Mitsubishi dealers authorized to locate in the western half of the county. The Petitioner MMSA did not make any assurances of that nature. The Petitioner MMSA did not become aware of or consider the Petitioner’s request to relocate until after the other two dealers were either under construction or in the final stages of establishing their dealerships in the western portion of the county. The Petitioner MMSA did not misrepresent the relocation request or hide its intention to support the request from the Respondents. The Petitioner JSL seeks to relocate its dealership to the west to a parcel owned by its principal investor, Mr. Smith. The dealership would occupy a portion of the lot now housing Mr. Smith’s Buick dealership. Additionally, the entire facility would be improved in appearance and amenities. Theoretically, the Petitioner JSL would be more able to compete with the newer facilities also located in the western portion of the county. The Petitioner’s current location is nearer to the downtown area of Fort Lauderdale. It is located in a marginal neighborhood with crime and undesirable areas in close proximity. The physical plant itself is dated in appearance and opportunities. The Petitioner JSL has not spent any substantial amount of funds to improve the physical plant, its security, or to acquire off-site storage or support facilities. The proposed relocation site is also in a crime- stricken area however it is west of the predominant crime area. The Petitioner JSL is desirous of improving the proposed site. One of JSL's primary investors would also benefit from such improvements. The Buick dealership owned by Mr. Smith would continue to operate at the property but would have the benefit of the improved facilities. All four Mitsubishi dealers have to shuttle customers to work if service work is to be performed during the day. The driving times for such shuttles would increase depending on the work location of the customers. Persons working in the downtown Fort Lauderdale area would most conveniently utilize the Petitioner’s current location for service. All four dealerships have facilities that meet or exceed the Mitsubishi standards for sales and service volumes. The proposed relocation site would also comply with the Mitsubishi guidelines for sales and service. On August 20, 1999, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles published a notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating MMSA's intention to allow the Petitioner JSL to relocate its dealership from its current address to 2300 North State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The notice of the proposed relocation correctly specified that the dealer operator of the relocated Mitsubishi dealership to be Tak Liu a/k/a Ted Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the current dealer operator and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Petitioner JSL. Mr. Johnson assumed his role with the company when it was purchased from the former owner of the dealership, a Mr. Holman. Originally, the principal investors of the Petitioner JSL were Ted Johnson, Philip P. Smith, and Jon F. Lutter. Mr. Lutter subsequently sold his interest in the Petitioner JSL to Michael Dayhoff. Regardless of the accuracy of the notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly regarding the ownership of the Petitioner JSL, such notice correctly identified the dealer seeking to relocate and accurately described its current and proposed locations. Thus all dealers presumably affected by the proposed relocation were put on adequate notice of the proposal submitted by the Petitioners. The Respondent King's dealership is approximately 13 miles in straight line distance from the existing location of the Petitioner JSL. If relocated to the proposed site, JSL would be approximately 11.5 miles in straight line distance from the Respondent King. In terms of driving time, the Respondent King's dealership is approximately 26 minutes in driving time from the Petitioner's existing location. Comparatively the Respondent King's location is approximately 20 minutes in driving time from the Petitioner's proposed location. As for the Respondent Seidle, the Petitioner's current location is approximately 11 miles in straight line distance from the existing JSL dealership. If relocated to the proposed site, the Respondent Seidle would be approximately 9 miles in distance from the Petitioner JSL. If JSL were allowed to relocate, the driving time to the Respondent Seidle's dealership would not significantly change. For purposes of this case, it is determined that the community or territory (comm/terr) served by these dealers is Broward County, Florida. The growth in this market will continue in the foreseeable future as the growths in population, employment, and industry new vehicle registrations have demonstrated. Moreover, the current and future demographic factors indicate that Mitsubishi should be adequately represented by four dealers in this comm/terr. As presently configured the Mitsubishi dealers in the comm/terr are on average 5.2 miles from the consumers in this market area. If allowed to relocate, the distance for consumers would be reduced to 4.4 miles. Either of these distances would allow Mitsubishi to effectively compete with like segment products. The traffic patterns along the major north/south and east/west corridors in Broward County make all existing dealers easily accessible either north to south or east to west. There are no barriers to prevent customers from conveniently accessing dealers to the east, west, south, or north. The relocation of the Petitioner JSL to the proposed site would not dramatically improve this accessibility except for those customers who reside in the western portions of the county. And while the relocation of the JSL dealership to the proposed site would increase the convenience to the western customers, the Mitsubishi customers to the east who were previously served by this dealer would be required to travel a greater distance for sales or service. With the opening and establishment of Seidle in Davie, Mitsubishi customers to the southwest will also have that point for sales and service convenience. The proposed site does not constitute an identifiable plot within the comm/terr to support the relocation of the existing dealer. The newly opened Seidle together with King should adequately provide sales and service to the western portion of this market. Any inconvenience in sales or service previously experienced by the customers in the western portion of the county will be quickly cured. With the expansion of the two new dealers in the western portion of the comm/terr, the Petitioner MMSA should experience increased visibility and sales. The relocation of the Petitioner JSL would diminish the expected success of the Respondents in this western portion of the comm/terr. It is too early to determine whether the Respondent Seidle will be as successful as the Respondent King. Given the investments of both of these dealers, however, it is reasonable to afford them more time to demonstrate the strengths of their abilities to market to the western portion of the comm/terr. Both dealers should be able to meet their obligations to the Petitioner MMSA. Given the demonstrated success of the Respondent King, and the projections for this comm/terr, it is reasonably expected market penetration of the existing dealers as presently located will adequately serve the comm/terr. In this case the Petitioner MMSA has encouraged the existing dealers by offering the existing dealers the opportunities to establish new points in the west, by recognizing the opportunity for sales growth in this comm/terr, and by assuring an adequate number of dealers for this market. The relocation of the Petitioner's dealership will not greatly improve the network of Mitsubishi dealers in Broward County. The Petitioner MMSA has not attempted to coerce the existing dealers into consenting to the proposed relocation of the Petitioner JSL. All existing Mitsubishi dealers are in substantial compliance with their dealer agreements. Without the proposed relocation there is adequate interbrand and intrabrand competition in the comm/terr. Without the proposed relocation there is adequate customer convenience in terms of sales and service. Without sufficient actual data from the sales for the Respondent Seidle, it is impossible to determine whether the relocation is warranted and justified based on economic and market conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the comm/terr. The reasonable projected sales suggest the current dealer configuration to be sufficient and adequate as contemplated by the statute. If future population or household growths exceed the levels projected or if actual sales demonstrate a stronger market than projected, additional points in the western portion of the county may be warranted. The actual volumes of registrations by the existing dealers suggest that the Petitioner JSL could perform stronger without encroaching on the sales reasonably expected to be made by the Respondents. With regard to the Petitioners' assertions that the current neighborhood limits the JSL's ability to do business, it is determined that other motor vehicle dealerships in proximity to the Petitioner's store have remained in business in the neighborhood. Those dealers (Lincoln-Mercury, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Isuzu, Ford, Jaguar, and Honda) have not relocated due to crime or other neighborhood problems. It is further determined that the data relied upon by Petitioners to calculate a shortfall in the comm/terr failed to recognize that the fourth dealer, the Respondent Seidle, was not in business until March 2000. The addition of the fourth point will relieve an deficiency in performance for the comm/terr.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the request to relocate the motor vehicle dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 11th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 John Forehand, Esquire Walter E. Forehand, Esquire Myers, Forehand & Fuller, P.A. 402 North Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kieran P. Fallon, P.A. 80 Southwest 80th Street, Suite 2804 Miami, Florida 33130 Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbil & Brennan, L.L.P. 2282 Killearn Center Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3561 James Gregory Humphries, Esquire Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801-4626 Enoch John Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 William T. Joyce, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600
The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership filed by El Sol Trading, Inc., and Eco-Green Machine, LLC (Petitioners), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that the Respondent has a franchise agreement to sell or service ZLMI motor vehicles, the line-make to be sold by Eco-Green Machine, LLC. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent's dealership is physically located so as to meet the statutory requirements for standing to protest the establishment of the new point franchise motor vehicle dealership.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the protest filed in this case by Finish Line Scooters, LLC, and granting the Petitioners' request to establish a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership for the sale of ZLMI motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Patcharee Clark ECO Green Machine, LLC, d/b/a ECO Green Machine 7000 Park Boulevard, Suite A Pinellas Park, Florida 33781 John V. Leonard Finish Line Scooters, LLC 6600 Gulf Boulevard St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706 Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Gloria Ma El Sol Trading, Inc., d/b/a Motobravo, Inc. 19877 Quiroz Court City of Industry, California 91789 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether the Petitioners' proposed dealership should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 41, three separate Notices of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population were published. The first notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The second notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The third notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. By letter dated October 16, 2008, Respondent filed the following letter of protest with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: In regards to the intent of [Galaxy] to establish a Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group LTD (SHWI) with [Treasure Coast] for the sale of motorcycles at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie, Fl [sic] 34952. This letter represents a written complaint to their application for this dealership, because we already represent said dealership. This letter also represents a complaint on the following conditions: The proposed dealership would be within 20 miles of our dealership, as measured by straight line distance. They are 8.61 miles away per mapquest. The proposed dealership is to be located within the contractual area outlined in our dealer agreement, as we have a 20 mile exclusivity. We have made more than 25% of our retail sales to persons whose registered household addresses are within 20 straight line miles of the proposed dealership during the past 12 month period. We have established three out of four of the conditions exist, so we are submitting this complaint protesting the establishment of the above dealership. By letter dated October 22, 2008, the Department referred this matter to DOAH. The letter of referral provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of section 120.57, Florida Statutes, we are enclosing a Complaint and supporting documents pursuant to 320.642, Florida Statutes, filed by Wendy and Mark Mourning, on behalf of the above Respondent, thus requiring a hearing under the term of this statute. [Respondent] is protesting the establishment of [Treasure Coast] for the line-make Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South US 1, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952. The protest filed by Respondent was timely. Respondent's dealership is within 8.61 miles of the proposed site. Mr. Mourning verified the driving distance and presented the measured distance as computed by the website Mapquest. Further, the driving time between the two points is less than 30 minutes. Respondent has dealer agreements to sell various lines of motorcycles, including the following: motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI); motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ); and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG). Although Respondent still has a valid dealer agreement as to motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI), Respondent has discontinued the sale of those motorcycles. Mr. Mourning testified that Respondent has no objection to permitting Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI). As to motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ), and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG), Respondent has served the area for not less than two years and has successfully promoted those two lines of motorcycles within its territory or community. Respondent established that its sales of those motorcycles are within 12.5 miles of the proposed dealership. Respondent adequately represents Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) and Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) in Respondent’s community or territory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order authorizing Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at Petitioners' proposed dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Mark Mourning and Wendy Mourning WenMark Inc., d/b/a All The Wheel Toys 1540 Northwest Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34994 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Guy Young J & F South Florida Investments, Inc. d/b/a Treasure Coast Scooters and Things 7320 South US 1 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' notice of intent to establish a supplemental motor vehicle dealership was effective to commence the statutory protest period, which must be completed as a necessary condition of licensure.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated September 13, 2002, Petitioner BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") notified Respondent Department Of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the "Department") that Petitioner Pompano Imports, Inc., d/b/a Vista Motors ("Vista"), intended to relocate its dealership, where BMW cars and light trucks were being sold and serviced, from 700 North Federal Highway in Pompano Beach ("Source Site") to 4401 West Sample Road in Coconut Creek ("Target Site").1 BMW NA and Vista took the position that, pursuant to Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes,2 the proposed reopening of the "relocatee-dealership"3 at the Target Site should not be considered subject to competing dealers' administrative protests. Pursuant to Section 320.642(1)(d), Florida Statutes, the Department caused BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to be published in the September 27, 2002, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. On September 27, 2002, also in accordance with Section 320.642(1)(d), the Department mailed copies of BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to all existing BMW passenger car dealers and BMW light truck dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. Within two weeks, however, the Department mailed letters to these same dealers explaining that the proposed reopening of Vista's relocatee- dealership at the Target Site would not be a "protestable" event after all. A little more than seven months later, by letter dated May 5, 2003, BMW NA notified the Department that Vista planned to establish an additional or "supplemental" dealership for selling and servicing BMW cars and light trucks at 744 North Federal Highway in Pompano Beach (the "Supplemental Site"), a parcel which is contiguous to the Source Site where the relocatee-dealership then remained open for business, the previously announced relocation having not yet taken place. As required by statute, the Department not only caused a notice to be published in the May 16, 2003, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly regarding this putative supplemental dealership, but also it mailed copies of BMW NA's May 5, 2003, notice to all existing BMW passenger car dealers and BMW light truck dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. No dealer timely protested Vista's intended opening of a supplemental dealership at the Supplemental Site. Generally speaking, after the Department has received notice from a licensee or applicant regarding the latter's intent either to establish an additional dealership or to relocate an existing dealership, and after such notice has been duly published in accordance with Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, the Department routinely enters a final order authorizing the issuance of a license for the proposed additional or relocated dealership upon the applicant's satisfaction of all other requirements for licensure, unless a timely protest is filed, in which case final agency action must be taken pursuant to Chapter 120.4 In this case, however, by letter dated July 10, 2003, the Department informed BMW NA and Vista of its decision that because the putative relocatee- dealership was still doing business at the Source Site, and because the Supplemental Site was immediately adjacent to the Source Site, the proposed supplemental dealership would be deemed an "expansion" of the putative relocatee-dealership, as opposed to an "additional" dealership. Based on this determination, the Department concluded in its July 10, 2003, correspondence that: (1) a license would not be issued for the expansion of Vista's dealership into the Supplemental Site; (2) the opening of the dealership that Vista proposed to establish at the Target Site, which would come into being as the putative relocatee-dealership expanded, could not be considered exempt from protest, for no "relocation" would be occurring; and (3) notice and an opportunity to protest would need to be provided with respect to the Target Site before a license for an additional dealership at that location could be issued. BMW NA and Vista each requested a hearing to challenge the Department's findings and conclusions, initiating, respectively, DOAH Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970. These cases were subsequently consolidated. On September 30, 2003, before the final hearing in the consolidated proceeding, the Department, BMW NA, and Vista entered into a settlement agreement. Upon being advised of the settlement, the presiding administrative law judge (not the undersigned) closed DOAH's files in Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970 and relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. Pursuant to the referenced settlement agreement, the Department, on October 7, 2003, approved Vista's application to relocate its BMW passenger car and BMW light truck dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site, as had been proposed in the September 13, 2002, notice of relocation. Vista's motor vehicle dealer license was, accordingly, modified to permit Vista to conduct dealership activities with regard to BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Target Site. This modification effectively "de-licensed" Vista as a BMW dealer at the Source Site. On October 7, 2003, Vista stopped selling and servicing BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Source Site. (Vista continued to operate a preexisting, separately licensed Volkswagen dealership at the Source Site.) On October 8, 2003, Vista started selling and servicing BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Target Site. (Vista continued to operate a preexisting, separately licensed MINI dealership at the Target Site.) Also pursuant to the settlement agreement referenced above, the Department notified BMW NA and Vista, by letter dated October 15, 2003, of the following relevant findings:5 Pursuant to Rule 15C-7.004(3)(d)2, Florida Administrative Code, the Department views [Vista's] proposed additional motor vehicle BMW dealership . . . at [the Supplemental Site] as an expansion of Vista Motors' existing licensed BMW dealership at [the Source Site.] Therefore, the [proposed project at the Supplemental Site] . . . , [being] in fact merely an expansion of Vista Motors' existing location [i.e. the Source Site], [is] not [an additional BMW dealership] subject to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. [T]hus BMW is essentially intending to remain open at its existing . . . location [meaning, apparently, the Source Site] at the same time it is relocating to [the Target Site]. Based on the foregoing findings, the Department concluded as follows:6 [The exemption from protest afforded under Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes, cannot apply where the putative relocatee- dealership of] Vista Motors . . . remain[s] open at the [Source Site] as a franchise BMW dealer . . . [while] at the same time [Vista] move[s] [the putative relocatee- dealership] to the [Target Site]. Therefore, Vista may not be issued a license as a franchise BMW dealer at the [Supplemental Site], until it relocates to [the Target Site] and thereafter publishes a new notification of an additional dealership for the [Supplemental Site], and those proceedings, if any, are concluded in favor of the additional dealership. (Emphasis added.) At first blush, the October 15, 2003, notice seems curiously oblivious to the fact that the Department had already approved Vista's relocation to the Target Site and modified Vista's license accordingly. Indeed, there appears to be some tension between the "facts" found in the notice and the actual facts on the ground. For example, while the notice refers to Vista's existing licensed BMW dealership at the Source Site, the undisputed fact is that Vista was not licensed to operate a BMW dealership at the Source Site as of October 7, 2003. Thus, if the Department believed, as a literal reading of the notice suggests, that Vista's intent on October 15, 2003, was to expand an existing BMW dealership at the Source Site, then it would be reasonable to wonder why the Department did not conclude that Vista was operating at the Source Site without a license. Conclusion 1 seems likewise to be at odds with what had transpired in fact. On the one hand, the Department concludes that Vista has remained open at the Source Site, which it cannot do and also claim, as it had done, the Section 320.642(5) exemption. Yet, on the other hand, the Department had, in fact, previously authorized Vista to operate a BMW dealership at the Target Site under the auspices of the very exemption that the October 15, 2003, notice concludes cannot apply because Vista is still open (according to the "findings") at the Source Site. To properly understand the October 15, 2003, notice, it is necessary to focus on the word "thereafter" in Conclusion 2(b). Clearly, the timing of the "new notification" is critical. The Department is saying that, where a dealer has previously given notice of its intent to relocate an existing dealership, taking advantage of Section 320.642(5) to exempt the reopening of such relocatee-dealership at the target site, if the dealer now wants to establish a "supplemental" dealership at the source site7 (hereafter, such a dealership will be called a "backfill dealership"8) then the relocatee-dealership must truly be relocated before effective notice of the proposed backfill dealership may be published. Under this policy,9 hereafter called the "Exempt Relocation/Backfill Policy," it is appropriate for the Department, in determining retrospectively10 whether the notice of the proposed "supplemental" dealership was effective, to look at the facts as of the date of the notice. In this case, the subject notice was given to the Department on May 5, 2003, and published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 16, 2003. With these points in mind, it becomes apparent that the "findings" in the October 15, 2003, notice, which seem inconsistent with the facts on the ground, actually refer to the state of affairs in May 2003. Once the findings in the October 15, 2003, notice are understood as being retrospective in nature, the notice begins to make sense. What the Department found was that Vista had not relocated its BMW dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site as of May 5, 2003, when notice of the proposed backfill dealership was furnished to the Department. As a result, because Vista had previously sought the protection of Section 320.642(5) for the reopening of its relocatee-dealership, the May 5, 2003, notice respecting the backfill dealership was premature and ineffective. To remedy the problem of premature notice, the Department would afford Vista a second chance to give effective notice in the proper sequence, after the relocation of its BMW dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site had taken place.11 It is important to note that, in the October 15, 2003, notice, the Department neither needed to make nor made a finding, one way or the other, as to whether Vista's putative relocatee-dealership has, in fact, moved from the Source Site to the Target Site.12 Thus, such a determination should not be made in and through this proceeding, but, rather, by the Department (preliminarily) either (a) at the time BMW NA gives notice to the Department, again, of the proposed backfill dealership at Supplemental Site or (b) after publication of such notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly but before a license for the proposed backfill dealership is issued or denied.13 It is also not necessary, and indeed would be inappropriate, to determine in this case what action, if any, the Department should take if it subsequently determines that Vista's putative relocatee- dealership has not in fact relocated from the Source Site to the Target Site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order providing that Vista shall be issued a license to operate a BMW dealership at 744 North Federal Highway only if: (a) prior to the time notice is given to the Department pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, regarding the proposed dealership, Vista has actually relocated the dealership that existed at 700 North Federal Highway to 4401 West Sample Road in Coconut Creek; any protest filed against the proposed dealership is resolved in Petitioners' favor; and (c) all other legal requirements for licensure are met. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2004.
