The Issue The issue in this cause is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Panama City Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On November 4, 2008, 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 Panama City 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, 2009, 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, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Lin Moto Dealer Import, LLC 4998-B South Royal Atlanta Drive Tucker, Georgia 30084 Wayne Wooten Moto Import Distributors, LLC 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 Rap Peavy Big Boys Toys Florida, LLC 1312 Thomas Drive Panama City Beach, Florida 32408 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Robin Lotane, 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, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Barbara J. Staros, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Settlement Stipulation| and Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. i The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this Inatter. Accordingly it is FOUND and ORDERED as follows: 1. That Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount $f two thousand a dollars ($2,000.00). The fine shal! be paid in four monthly payments. The first payment of i $500.00 to be paid on or before April 30, 2010. The second payment of $500.00 to be paid on or before May 30, 2010. The third payment of $500.00 to be paid on or before J unk 30, 2010. The fourth and final payment of $500.00 to be paid on or before July 30, 2010. All Hayments are to | be made by returning a copy of the order with payment to: Filed March 26, 2010 9:15 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. i i i 1 | Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehi¢les Office of the Hearing Officer Division of Motor Vehicles ; 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A308, MS-61 | Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 ; 2. If Respondent pays each installment of the amount specified in paragraph one above within the specified time the Department will impose no further penalties or sanctions against Respondent. However, if Respondent fails to pay any installment as specified in haragraph one, on the day following the due date of the installment, Respondent’s motor vehicle dedler license will be automatically suspended and Respondent will cease to do business as a motor vehicle dealer. 3. If, after suspension Respondent pays the past due installment before the due date of the next installment, its motor vehicle dealer license will immediately be reinstated without further penalties or sanctions. However, if Respondent fails to pay the past due installment by the due date of the next installment, the Department will revoke Respondent’s motor vehicle in license. 4. If the Department suspends or revokes Respondent’s motor veil dealer license for | non-payment as specified in paragraphs two and three said suspension or revocatibn shall be without recourse to the Respondent and Respondent hereby expressly waives any|right to appeal or otherwise contest the suspension and OY. DONE AND ORDERED this a 772 day of March 2010, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety a Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room Bajo, MS-60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 Filed in the official records of the Division of Motor Vehicles this ‘day of March 2010. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer ‘Administrator 2 if | ; 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 withi thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Rules of App¢llate Procedure. CAF:jde Copies furnished: Deborah Osman Regional Administrator Dealer License Section i | | t | 1 I i i Joel Sharp, President Drive it Away Auto Sales, Inc. | 2527 West Tennessee Street i Tallahassee, Florida 32304 FALR | Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 | i i i | | i i
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner manufactures and sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles to authorized Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealers. Ulm is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ulm sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 2966 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida 33607. Ferman is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ferman sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 24314 State Road 54, Lutz, Florida 33559. It is undisputed that Petitioner has had four dealers in the Tampa metro market for a significant number of years. Petitioner's primary competitors also have had four or more dealers in the Tampa metro market. By appointing North Tampa as a successor dealer to Bob Wilson Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Wilson), Petitioner seeks to maintain the status quo of four Chrysler dealers in the Tampa metro market. In April 2008, Petitioner had four dealers in the Tampa metro market that each sold and serviced Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The four dealers were: Ulm, Ferman, Courtesy Chrysler Jeep Dodge, and Wilson. On April 25, 2008, Wilson filed a Chapter 11 petition in United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida (the Bankruptcy Court). At or about the same time, Wilson closed its doors and ceased selling and servicing Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The filing of Wilson’s bankruptcy petition precipitated an automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The automatic stay prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson’s franchise and dealer agreements (dealer agreements). But for Wilson’s bankruptcy filing, Petitioner would have sent Wilson a notice of termination when Wilson closed its doors and ceased dealership operations. Wilson’s cessation of business adversely impacted Petitioner. In relevant part, Petitioner lost sales and lacked a necessary fourth dealer to provide service to Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge customers in the Tampa metro market. Petitioner desired to reopen a dealership at or close to the former Wilson location as soon as possible to mitigate or eliminate the economic loss. During the automatic stay, Petitioner was legally precluded from unilaterally appointing a successor dealer to Wilson. Wilson still had valid dealer agreements for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles and, therefore, was still a dealer. During the automatic stay, Wilson attempted to sell its existing dealership assets, including the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealer agreements. Any attempt by Petitioner to appoint a successor dealer or even negotiate with a successor dealer, would have undermined Wilson’s efforts to sell the dealerships and maximize the estate for the benefit of the creditors. A sale of the dealership required the consent of Wilson and Wilson’s largest creditor, Chrysler Financial. Petitioner did everything it could to accelerate a sale. However, Petitioner was not a party to the sale negotiations and had no ability to require or force Wilson to sell the dealership or its assets to any particular party or to do so within any particular time period. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner did anything to intentionally, or inadvertently, delay or manipulate the timing of a sale. On July 30, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay. The motion also sought the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner filed the motion in the Bankruptcy Court in an attempt to hasten the sale negotiations. Petitioner also wanted to be able to terminate the dealer agreements as quickly as possible in the event that a sale was not consummated. The Bankruptcy Court did not initially grant Petitioner's motion. The court wanted to allow time for a sale of the dealership to proceed. During 2008 and early 2009, Wilson continued to negotiate with potential buyers for the dealership. On January 8, 2009, Wilson's motor vehicle dealer license expired. It became apparent to Petitioner that a sale of Wilson’s assets would be unlikely. Petitioner again asked the Bankruptcy Court to grant Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. On February 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. However, the order did not terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. On February 16, 2009, within a week of the entry of the order lifting the stay, Petitioner sent Wilson a notice of intent to terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. Wilson received the notice of termination on February 23, 2009, and the termination became effective on March 10, 2009. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner attempted to manipulate or delay the timing of the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner began working on establishing a replacement dealership as soon as Wilson’s dealer agreements were terminated. Establishing a replacement dealership is a lengthy process that primarily involves finding a suitable dealer candidate, finding a suitable location and facility, and making sure that the candidate has the necessary capital to start and maintain the dealership. Petitioner talked to several potential candidates to replace the Wilson dealership, including Jerry Ulm, the principal of one of the complaining dealers in these cases. By letter dated June 24, 2009, Mr. Ulm advised Petitioner that he opposed the opening of a successor dealership for anyone else but wanted the successor dealership for himself should Petitioner decide to proceed. Petitioner determined that Petitioner would not be able to locate the successor dealership at the former Wilson facility. Petitioner considered several potential alternative locations for the successor dealership, including property offered by Ferman. Ferman had a vacant site on Fletcher Avenue in Tampa, Florida, which Ferman leased from a third party unrelated to this proceeding. Ferman offered to sublease the property to Petitioner. In a letter to Petitioner's real estate agent dated July 17, 2009, Ferman stated Ferman's understanding that Petitioner intended to use the property to establish a Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealership. Petitioner ultimately decided to locate the dealership at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. It is undisputed that this location is less than two miles from the former Wilson location. Before establishing the successor dealership, however, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Department on February 5, 2010 (the letter). The letter requested the Department to confirm that the establishment of the successor dealership would be exempt under Subsection 320.642(5)(a)1. from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3). The letter explained that Wilson had filed bankruptcy and ceased operations and that the bankruptcy had prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson and appointing a successor dealership. The letter also provided the relevant dates of the bankruptcy, the lifting of the stay, and the termination of Wilson dealer agreements and advised the Department of Petitioner's intent to locate the successor dealership within two miles of Wilson’s former location. The letter asked the Department to confirm that the establishment of a successor dealership would be exempt if it was established within one year of March 10, 2009, when Petitioner terminated the Wilson dealer agreements. By separate e-mails dated February 9 and 12, 2010, the Department twice confirmed that it had consulted with counsel and determined that the establishment of a successor dealership to Wilson in the manner outlined by Petitioner would be exempt. Petitioner relied on this confirmation by the Department before proceeding with the appointment of a successor dealership. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner sent a second letter to the Department, stating Petitioner's intention to appoint North Tampa as the replacement and successor dealer for Wilson (the second letter). In the second letter, Petitioner again asserted its understanding that the establishment of North Tampa was exempt from the relevant statutory requirements for notice and protest. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner also submitted to the Department an application for a motor vehicle dealer license for North Tampa. On March 3, 2010, the Department issued a license to North Tampa for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On March 7, 2010, North Tampa opened for business. North Tampa has operated successfully and continuously and employs approximately 30 individuals at the site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the establishment of North Tampa as a successor motor vehicle dealer is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3) pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 2010.
The Issue The issue 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.
The Issue Whether J.S. Imports, Inc. should be granted a new point Mazda dealership at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida, pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is a manufacturer of automobiles and trucks which are distributed and sold through a network of dealerships. Under Florida law Mazda is denoted a "licensee." On January 5, 1996, a notice of publication for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealer was published which announced Mazda intends to allow the establishment of J.S. Imports, Inc., as a dealership for the sale of Mazda vehicles at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach (Palm Beach County), Florida 33415. The notice further provided, in pertinent part: Mazda Motor of America, Inc., intends to engage in business with J. S. Imports, Inc., as a dealership on or after February 1, 1996. The name and address of the dealer-operator and principal investor of J. S. Imports, Inc., is: John Staluppi, Jr., 42 Davidson Lane East, West Islip, New York 11795. * * * Dealerships of the same line-make which can establish standing to protest the establishment of the new point may do so by filing a written petition or complaint with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Thereafter, on February 1, 1996, Respondents, Stewart Mazda, Delray Mazda, and Jupiter Dodge Mazda, filed a petition or complaint challenging the proposed new point dealer. Respondents are the existing Mazda dealerships located within Palm Beach County. There are no other same line-make motor vehicle dealerships which are physically located so as to meet or satisfy the requirements of Section 320.642(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, all dealers with the potential for standing have participated in this proceeding. Palm Beach County is a county with more than 300,000 population. Respondent, Stewart Mazda, is located at 2001 South Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is within 12.5 miles of the proposed location for the new point site. In fact, the Stewart dealership is within five miles of the proposed new point. Respondent, Delray Mazda, is not located within 12.5 miles of the proposed location. Nevertheless, Delray Mazda established that during any 12 month period of the 36 month period preceding the filing of the licensee's application for the proposed dealer Delray Mazda made 25% of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were within a radius of 12.5 miles of the proposed site. Respondent, Jupiter Dodge Mazda, is not within 12.5 miles of the location for the proposed new dealership yet it also met the sales standard described in paragraph 7. The proposed new motor vehicle dealer, J.S. Imports, Inc., is owned by John Staluppi, Jr., the son of John Staluppi. No other person or entity owns more than a 10% interest in JSI. It is proposed that J.S. Imports, Inc. will be located at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Such real property is part of an automobile mall or auto mall (a cluster of automobile dealerships) which is owned or controlled by John Staluppi. The new Mazda vehicle sales facility would be located at 631 South Military Trail; however, the service facility for the dealership would be located elsewhere within a shared space at 561 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Both parcels are owned or controlled by John Staluppi. Both parcels are part of the same auto mall. As part of its documentation to establish the dealership, J.S. Imports, Inc. (JSI) submitted an unsigned lease for the subject property between John Staluppi and the proposed dealer. On or about October 25, 1996, just prior to this case going to hearing, John Staluppi entered into an agreement to sell the assets of the automobile dealerships located within the auto mall. He also agreed to lease the real estate upon which they are located. The lease included the sites for the new Mazda point as well as the service location. Without going into details of the agreement which are not material to the issues of this case, and without listing all of the corporate entities involved in the transaction, the principals in this new agreement were John Staluppi and Terry Taylor. Material to this case, however, is the covenant between Mr. Taylor and John Staluppi, Jr. Those parties reached an agreement to sublease the real estate at 631 South Military Trail and the service department at 561 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Such agreement to sublease was also executed October 25, 1996. Based upon the foregoing, as of October 25, 1996, the proposed site for the Mazda new point dealer continued to be 631 South Military Trail with service work to be at 561. These sites are identical to the information submitted by the applicant to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. This information was also disclosed to Respondents during discovery of the case, prior to the prehearing stipulation. Subsequently, the transaction between Mr. Taylor and John Staluppi was abandoned. Mr. Taylor’s deposit on the transaction was refunded. Apparently, these parties no longer intend to abide by the terms of the asset purchase agreement. JSI does not own the proposed site. If approved, JSI will lease the property from John Staluppi or entities he owns or controls. As of the time of hearing, JSI did not have a signed lease for the subject property. Typically, Mazda does not submit applications for new point dealerships without some documentation substantiating control of the proposed site. A proposed dealer would normally either own or control the proposed site. Control of the site may be shown by a lease, an option to purchase or an option to lease. In this instance, Mazda presumed the proposed site would be secured through the efforts of John Staluppi, Jr. on behalf of his company which would lease from his father. Moreover, Mazda believes its agreement with JSI (for the applicant dealer to reimburse it for costs or expenses incurred should the dealership effort fail due to an act or omission of JSI) adequately protected its interests in this regard. As of the dates of filing the application for a new point dealership, the notice of same, and the hearing in this cause, no person or entity, other than John Staluppi, Jr., had a beneficial ownership interest in the proposed dealership. To determine whether an additional same line-make dealer should be approved, the existing network of motor vehicle dealers must be evaluated to determine whether they are providing adequate representation to the community or territory. The applicable statutory criteria do not define "adequate representation" nor the "community or territory." Typically, sales data of past dealership performance is utilized by all parties to establish a community or territory (Comm/Terr) and to evaluate the dealers' effectiveness. In this case how the Comm/Terr should be defined is disputed by the parties. Although entitled to weight in the consideration of how the Comm/Terr should be defined, the dealer agreements with the three existing dealers (Respondents) do not assign an area by geographical boundaries. Respondents believe the Comm/Terr, based upon their interpretation of their agreements, should be defined as Palm Beach County as a whole. In contrast, Mazda studies have defined the market for these dealers in different ways; however, it believes the Comm/Terr should be Palm Beach County excluding the primary market area (PMA) ascribed to Jupiter Dodge Mazda. In making this determination, Mazda constructed the PMAs for the existing dealers as well as the new point (or open point) which has been designated as the Staluppi PMA. Within the Staluppi PMA it is presumed that dealer would have a competitive advantage in the market. Similarly, within the Stewart PMA that dealer would have the competitive edge due to customer preference and convenience. The actual shopping patterns of Mazda customers was also assessed. In this case, the three dealers are located in three distinct geographical areas: one toward the northern boundary of the county at Jupiter; one to the south at Delray; and one in the eastern central portion at downtown West Palm Beach. The proposed Staluppi/JSI site is west of the Stewart location. Based upon the actual shopping patterns the majority of the sales by these three existing dealers are made to customers in the same county. Because few of Mazda's customers come from adjacent counties, the largest area which should be used to define the Comm/Terr is the county itself. Within Palm Beach County there are also identifiable plots associated with the three dealers which show that while Stewart and Delray are connected to the JSI site (via established purchasing patterns), Jupiter is not. For this reason, Mazda's expert in rendering his initial opinions regarding this matter excluded Jupiter from the Comm/Terr. This approach has been deemed persuasive. Currently, there are three clusters of automobile and truck dealerships within the Palm Beach Comm/Terr: Delray, where Mazda is now located; Military Trail/Okeechobee Boulevard, where Mazda wants to be located; and North Lake Boulevard. Eighty percent of the customers who shop for new cars, regardless of brand, go to one of the three clusters. Mazda is not represented in two of these popular shopping venues. Mazda and Dodge are the only brands offered in Jupiter. Less than 5% of the customers from the remainder of Palm Beach County (away from the Jupiter PMA) went to Jupiter to purchase a new vehicle. To determine a reasonable expected market penetration standard, it is appropriate to exclude certain factors, such as the consumer preferences for certain types of vehicles (independent of brand) over which the dealers have no control. Market penetration is the traditional standard used to measure adequacy of representation because it reflects the competitive efforts of the competing dealers. Registration data of all brands is used to comprise a single indicator called market share, which is an objective and accurate measure of market activity. Registration data reflects actual consumer purchases. Actual registrations account for demographic characteristics, including age, income, education, size-class preferences, and product popularity. Market penetration for any area is computed utilizing all registrations to addresses in the area, regardless of the location of the selling dealer. After registration data is compiled, the performance of the Comm/Terr can be compared to another market area (allowing for differences in segment popularity). In this case, Mazda compared the Palm Beach Comm/Terr to the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale market. Typically, manufacturers and companies which compile data regarding vehicle sales classify new vehicle sales into segments. These segments list models which are comparable to one another and are, presumably, competing for the same customer. Mazda classifies its vehicles into nine segments. Although it could be argued Mazda is ineffective against Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, part of that theoretical ineffectiveness is due to the lack or absence of entries from Mazda into markets or segments flooded by those make vehicles. For example, Mazda does not have a vehicle to compete with a Chevrolet Suburban. Nevertheless, on a segment-by-segment basis where Mazda competes with an entry comparable to the other line-makes (in size and class) Mazda's effectiveness can be computed and demonstrated. By measuring Mazda's penetration in each segment achieved in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area, applied to the industry data available in each segment in the Staluppi/JSI PMA, an appropriate standard is established for what could be expected if the latter were receiving adequate representation. Similarly, by applying the penetration rate to the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole it is possible to establish what could be expected if the Comm/Terr were receiving adequate representation. By considering the segment analysis the process takes into account differences in consumer preferences between markets as to the popularity of segments, and thereby gives a more accurate measure of what Mazda's reasonably expected market penetration should be. Utilizing this segment analysis, the reasonably expected 1995 Mazda market share in the Staluppi/JSI PMA was 5.97%. The actual penetration for Mazda in this PMA was 3.81%. Similarly, in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr in 1995, Mazda's reasonably expected share in the segments was 6.21%. The actual penetration for Mazda in the Comm/Terr was 4.49%. Alternatively, adding Jupiter to the Palm Beach Comm/Terr, Mazda's reasonably expected market share in 1995 was 6.19%. The actual penetration in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr (adding Jupiter) was 4.65%. Thus, in each analysis Mazda performance fell short of its reasonably expected penetration. With a properly constructed dealer network, containing the appropriate number of dealerships in proper locations, it is reasonable to expect the dealer network in Palm Beach County to perform as well as the dealer network in Miami/Fort Lauderdale after adjusting for the local consumer patterns that make Palm Beach different from the other area. Net shortfall is the number of additional Mazdas that would have to be registered in order to equal the expected level based on average performance across an area. On the basis of the net shortfall in units, or units required to be registered in order to bring the Staluppi/JSI PMA up to the expected performance, the 1995 shortfall was 246 units. In reviewing the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole over the three year period from 1993 to 1995, the efficiency has changed from 70.1% to 72.4%. For the Comm/Terr plus Jupiter, the efficiency has changed from 68.6% to 75.2% during the three years immediately following the insertion of Jupiter Dodge Mazda. Mazda was not receiving adequate representation from the standpoint of not achieving reasonably expected market share. That conclusion is the same whether the area under review is the Staluppi/JSI PMA, the larger Palm Beach Comm/Terr, or the Palm Beach Comm/Terr with Jupiter included. Increases in performance in 1996 (after the existing dealers knew an additional dealer was being sought for the Palm Beach Comm/Terr) while commendable do not negate the historical pattern of providing inadequate representation. The growth of population and households in Palm Beach County has been predominately to the west and central portions of the county and throughout the Delray Beach area. The proposed Staluppi/JSI PMA has also experienced rapid growth in households and population which is expected to continue. Among Mazda buyers, 28.5% thought that the location of the dealer was extremely important; 35.1% thought it was very important; 22.8% thought it was somewhat important; whereas only 8.7% thought it was not important, and 4.9% not important at all. The Military Trail auto mall into which JSI proposes to open the additional Mazda dealership, now contains Toyota, Jeep Eagle, Chrysler Plymouth, Nissan, Infiniti, Kia, GMC, Saturn, Ford and Isuzu. Other brands considered part of this cluster are on Okeechobee Boulevard. They are VW, Hyundai, Acura, Subaru, Volvo, Oldsmobile, Buick, Audi, BMW, Lexis, Lincoln Mercury, Chevrolet, Dodge, Mitsubishi and Mercedes Benz. Mazda would be required to have 3.2 dealerships in order to have the same share of the franchises in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as it has in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. Because Jupiter Dodge Mazda does not serve the Palm Beach Comm/Terr in a meaningful way, the Comm/Terr has two Mazda dealerships, and needs at least one more dealership to have a reasonable opportunity to receive adequate interbrand competition and gain expected market share. The likely cause of the current inadequacy of performance for the Palm Beach Comm/Terr is insufficient dealer count and poor dealer location. Without a dealer in the Staluppi/JSI PMA, consumers average 9.9 miles from the nearest Mazda dealer, which is higher than the major competitors located in the Staluppi/JSI PMA. With the addition of a Mazda dealer in the Staluppi/JSI PMA customers will be 7.2 miles, on average, to the nearest Mazda dealer a distance which should be more competitive with other brands such as Ford (3.9 miles), Chevrolet (4.7 miles), Nissan (7.2 miles), and Toyota (7.2 miles). Optimal location analysis also demonstrates that the proposed location would maximize customer convenience. If the J. S. Imports dealership is allowed to "float" in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr, while the other dealer locations are fixed, the location which would maximize customer convenience is near the proposed site. The proposed location is near the optimal location, and in the midst of a cluster of dealerships where approximately 30% of the sales of all Palm Beach County dealers are made. The proposed site is good in terms of solving the customer convenience problem in the area, and providing Mazda a presence in the cluster where many sales are made. The addition of a dealership will likely benefit consumers and the public interest. It will provide the growing population of the Staluppi/JSI PMA with a more convenient place to shop for Mazdas and more convenient Mazda service. It will take Mazda to a growing cluster of dealerships allowing customers a one stop opportunity to comparison shop Mazda and its competitors. Moreover, with increased interbrand and intrabrand competition Mazda and the existing dealers should be able to improve sales penetration and take advantage of the available market for Mazda products. Therefore, because of the large untapped opportunity for Mazda in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole, in the Comm/Terr plus Jupiter, and in the "identifiable plot" known as the Staluppi/JSI PMA, the addition of a new dealer should not cause a decrease in the existing Mazda dealers' sales over the long term. The addition should have a positive impact upon the overall sales opportunities for all the Mazda dealers. If you compute the total lost opportunity for sales in this market (941 units) and allocate a portion of sales to the Staluppi/JSI PMA (555), the remainder would be available to the existing dealers of the Comm/Terr. This remainder of the lost opportunity, (467 units utilizing the average penetration profile; 386 using the Jupiter profile), would be available for all Palm Beach Mazda dealers. Therefore, the proposed addition of a dealership can take place without taking any sales from existing Mazda dealers. The existing dealers should increase their sales because a large number of customers are now shopping in the Northlake and Okeechobee/Military Trail clusters, and could not previously consider Mazda conveniently because of the lack of a dealer. Having a dealer in the Okeechobee/Military Trail cluster should stimulate interest in Mazdas. All existing dealers have made substantial financial investments to perform their obligations under their dealers' agreements. In Stewart's case, the total investment is close to $5,000,000. Stewart's real estate and building are valued at approximately $3,000,000. Jupiter Dodge Mazda has about $1,000,000 invested in its dealership. Delray Mazda has approximately $3,500,000 invested in its dealership. All three existing dealerships should benefit from an increased Mazda presence in the market place. The reasonably expected market penetration for Mazda should improve with an additional dealership at the Staluppi auto mall. Mazda has not denied its existing dealers an opportunity for reasonable growth, expansion or relocation. In fact, Mazda urged Stewart to establish the dealership at the proposed location. Only when efforts with Stewart failed did Mazda go outside the existing dealers for an operator for the additional point. Mazda has not attempted to coerce the existing dealers into consenting to the additional dealership. In reaching this conclusion the single incident complained of by one existing dealer (that Mazda withdrew some advertising support) has been considered but is not persuasive that Mazda has acted improperly in its efforts to establish the new point. The distance travel time, considering traffic patterns and accessibility, between the proposed site and its nearest same line-make dealer (Stewart) is approximately ten minutes. While geographically closer than other dealers of same line-make vehicles, traffic and accessibility put the proposed site and Stewart at a reasonable distance. No evidence in this case supports a conclusion that consumers could have the same benefits offered by the proposed dealership from other changes. No evidence suggests the existing dealers are not in compliance with their dealer agreements. Intrabrand and interbrand competition should improve with the establishment of the new point. Service and sales facilities will be more convenient to customers. All existing dealers make sales into the area of the proposed site. With anticipated population growth and market availability, any sales lost to the new point should be offset by Mazda’s increased market presence, improved market penetration, and greater overall sales for all dealerships.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway Safety enter a final order approving the new point dealership sought by Mazda Motor of America on behalf of J.S. Imports, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James D. Adams, Esquire Adams & Quinton 7300 West Camino Real Camino Real Centre Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Douglas E. Thompson Post Office Box 16480 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Dean J. Rosenbach Lewis, Vegosen, Rosenbach & Silber, P.A. Post Office Box 4388 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4388 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether General Motors' decision not to renew its franchise agreement with Gallman Pontiac was "unfair" as the term is defined by Section 320.641(3), Florida statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background On or about October 28, 1988, (general Motors Corporation, Pontiac Division (General Motors) notified it franchisee, Bill Gallman Pontiac, GMC Truck, Inc. (Gallman Pontiac), a licensed motor vehicle dealer in the State of Florida, of its election not to renew the franchise agreement, effective ninety days from the date of the delivery of the notice of its decision. Because the franchise agreement was scheduled to expire on November 20, 1988, Bill Gallman would have the option to void the nonrenewal due to General Motor's failure to notify the motor vehicle dealer ninety days in advance of the proposed nonrenewal. To avoid this result and to comply with the franchise agreement, General Motors informed the dealer in the same notification that the current agreement was being extended for the same ninety day period in which the dealer had been given notice of the proposed nonrenewal. General Motors' extension of the term of the franchise agreement was a unilateral proposed novation that was accepted by Gallman Pontiac when he relied upon the modification and continued to do business under the novation. Gallman Pontiac's acceptance of the novation is clearly demonstrated by the timing of the verified complaint in this proceeding, which was filed on January 12, 1989. The specific reason stated by General Motors for its decision not to renew its franchise agreement beyond the ninety-day period was that Gallman Pontiac failed to fulfill its minimum sales performance responsibilities pursuant to its contractual obligations as set forth in the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement. Gallman Pontiac subsequently filed a verified complaint, pursuant to Section 320.641, Florida Statutes, to contest the proposed nonrenewal of the franchise agreement. The complaint alleges that the proposed nonrenewal is unfair and that the grounds asserted for the nonrenewal were factually untrue and/or legally insufficient for the intended purpose. The Mathematical Formula for Sales Effectiveness The manufacturer's primary purpose for entering into a franchise agreement with a dealer is to have its automobiles sold. To determine whether a dealer is meeting its responsibilities in this regard, the franchise agreement contains a mathematical formula which is used to evaluate the sales performance of all dealers who sell Pontiacs. Pursuant to the formula, which is expressed in the agreement and tide annual sales performance evaluation form, a dealer's sales ratio and registration ratio must be calculated. A dealer's sales ratio is determined by dividing the dealer's actual unit sales of new motor vehicles, wherever registered, by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. A dealer's registration ratio is determined by dividing new motor vehicle unit registrations by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. After these ratios are recorded, the dealer's sales and registration ratios are compared to zone and national registration ratio levels to determine sales and registration effectiveness. If the individual dealer's sales and registration performances reach a comparative level of 85 percent effectiveness to the zone and national levels, the dealer's performance is considered effective by General Motors. When the comparisons were made in this case, the dealer's sales effectiveness was 53.6 percent in 1987 and 68.5 percent in 1988. Registration effectiveness was 56.5 percent in 1987 and 74.1 percent in 1988. These levels of performance do not meet the minimum levels required by the franchise agreement. Other Considerations Under the Agreement In addition to the mathematical formula, the franchise agreement states that General Motors will consider other relevant factors in its sales evaluation, including the following factors: the trend over a reasonable period of time of dealer's sales performance; the manner in which dealer has conducted the sales operations, including advertising, sales promotion and treatment of customers; sales to fleet customers if they have affected registrations; the manner in which dealer has submitted orders for new motor vehicles to the Pontiac Division; the availability of new motor vehicles to dealer; and significant local conditions that may have directly affected dealer's performance. If the mathematical formulas regarding sales and registration effectiveness set forth in the franchise agreement were the sole measure used to determine Gallman Pontiac's sales performance through January 1989, it is clear that the dealer was not meeting its contractual obligations to General Motors in this area of responsibility. However, under the terms of the agreement, General Motors must look to other relevant factors that may have directly affected dealer's performance before a final determination can be made regarding an individual dealer's sales effectiveness. Contrary to the terms of the agreement, the annual evaluation forms show that Gallman Pontiac's performance was evaluated on retail sales only. The other relevant factors in the franchise agreement were not reviewed before the decision not to renew the franchise agreement was made. Other Relative Factors in the Agreement Which Should Have Been Considered in the Dealers Evaluation When the trend of the Gallman Pontiac's sales performance is reviewed, the evidence shows that Gallman Pontiac's sales performance over the life of the franchise agreement has improved relative to market growth by a small percentage (7.51%). This slight upward trend does not demonstrate an effective performance as the sales were below an acceptable standard before the increase in sales, and the improvement barely exceeded the local market growth. The time period over which the trend evaluation occurred is reasonable in this case because both parties agreed to a two-year term in the franchise agreement, which was subject to an overall evaluation prior to a renewal of the agreement. Although there was opinion testimony from a former sales manager from the dealership that Gaillman Pontiac did not order sufficient quantities and mix of vehicles, and imprudently focused the advertising towards the limited, younger group of buyers in Naples, this testimony was not found to be credible by the Hearing Officer. All of the other evidence presented by both sides regarding the manner in which the dealer conducted sales operations demonstrates that Gallman Pontiac met or exceeded his contractual obligations in this area of responsibility. Sales to fleet customers did not affect registrations in 1988. The dealer chose not to compete in the fleet market because the later resale of these vehicles interferes with the sale of new vehicles at this dealership. The manner in which the dealer submitted orders to the Pontiac Division was not criticized by General Motors. The dealer's procedures were continuously reviewed and evaluated through the Dealer Assistance Program. There was no showing that the dealer's ordering procedures directly affected its sales performance. The allocation procedures were applied to Gallman Pontiac in the same manner they were applied to other dealers. The evidence did not show that imprudent selections were made by the dealer in the ordering process, nor was it sufficiently established that manufacturer delays or the unavailability of certain products interfered with the dealer's sales in Naples. A significant local condition that may have directly affected the dealer's sales performance was the lack of receptivity in the Naples market area for linemakes in the class of automobiles offered by Pontiac. Actual sales performance data for all new car registrations in the area show that the Naples market prefers to purchase automobiles from the high group of automobiles such as Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, Mercedes Benz, and Porsche. Pontiac does not have a linemake designed to compete in this market segment. Application of the Other Relevant Factors To The Decision Not To Renew Because the franchise agreement and the annual sales evaluation form have not made provisions for any adjustments to the original statistical formula based upon the additional considerations mentioned in paragraphs 9-13, these factors are to be considered independently from the initial mathematical calculation. The purpose of the review of these factors is to determine if the statistical analysis is a reliable indicator of the sales performance of the dealer who is being evaluated before General Motors makes its final decision regarding termination. There has been no showing that General Motors ever used the additional considerations for any other purpose in its course of dealings with other dealers in the past or that any other interpretation has been given to these factors. In this case, when the additional relevant factors are reviewed in addition to the ineffective sales and registration performance statistics, the mathematical formula continues to be a reliable indicator that the sales performance at the Gallman Pontiac dealership does not meet required standards. The additional considerations set forth in the franchise agreement which are relevant to this case, do not seriously undermine the fairness of the application of the initial mathematical calculation to the sales performance of Gallman Pontiac. While the local market's lack of receptivity directly affects Gallman Pontiac's performance, the statistical formula takes this into account to a large degree when a dealer is required to meet eighty-five percent of the zone or national average to demonstrate minimum performance. If yet another mathematical formula was created to give additional weight to this local condition beyond the provision in the minimum standards formula, the manufacturer could be harmed by a individual dealer's lack of market penetration efforts. Because it is difficult to determine the primary cause and effect of poor market penetration in a specific area, the statistical formula is generally fair to both sides in most situations. It does not unfairly accuse either the dealer or the manufacturer as being responsible for the lack of sales. One indicator of the fairness involved in the application of the formula as designed can be found in Mr. Anderson's comparative analysis of the Naples automobile market and the Sarasota market. Mr. Anderson is the expert in automobile marketing analysis presented by General Motors. This analysis refutes the opinion of Dr. Ostlund, the expert presented by Gallman Pontiac during the hearing regarding automobile marketing analysis. It is Dr. Ostlund's opinion that Naples is a unique market in which the usual statistical formula becomes unfair if it is applied to all registrations in the Dealer's Area of Responsibility. Based upon this analysis, Dr. Ostlund suggests that a weighted average be applied in the standard formula to all of the sales made by Gallman Pontiac during the franchise period. However, even if this were done, Gallman Pontiac's performance would have been 84.7 percent, which is still below the required standard of 85 percent. Contrary to Dr. Ostlund's analysis, the Naples-Sarasota comparison conducted by Mr. Anderson demonstrates that Pontiac can compete in a high income area with similar demographics to Naples within the same zone along the same Florida coast. Therefore, the usual statistical formula remains a reliable indicator of the sales effectiveness of a Pontiac dealer in Naples, Florida, and should be applied without any further weighting of averages in the statistical analysis required by the franchise agreement. Application of Additional Factors Relevant to the Decision Not to Renew Pursuant to Statute A nonrenewal of the franchise agreement is clearly permitted by the franchise agreement. The nonrenewal has been undertaken in good faith and good cause. The manufacturer has continuously encouraged the dealer to meet sales performance standards and has worked with Gallman Pontiac in an effort to achieve this goal within the time frame agreed to by the parties. Because franchise dealers are the major outlet the manufacturer has for the sale of new automobiles, it is essential that minimum levels of sales performance are achieved on a regular basis. Failure to meet the minimum sales performance over the term of this agreement by Gallman Pontiac is a material and substantial breach of the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order dismissing Gallman Pontiac's complaint with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 28 day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0505 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3. Reject all but last sentence. Conclusions of Law. Accept the last sentence. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Reject that the dealer code problem can be attri- buted to the conduct of the manufacturer. Insufficient proof. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Reject the weighted average basis. See HO #14 and #15.. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Attempt to shift evidentiary burden. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Accept that additional factor's need to be considered. Rejected Dr. Ostlund's interpretation. See HO #9 through #15. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted, except for the last sentence which is an opinion or closing argument as opposed to a finding of fact. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted, except for Nissan. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Closing argument as opposed to finding of fact. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Conclusionary. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. See HO #10. Rejected. See HO #17. Rejected. See HO #15 and #17. Rejected. See HO #17. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO 415. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Redundant. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. Unreliable conclusion. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside the reasons given for nonrenewal. See HO #8. Rejected. Same reason as given in above. Rejected. Same reason as 49 and 50. Also contrary to fact. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Redundant and argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper argument. Rejected. The use of "sales reported" was allowed by the Hearing Officer at hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant in these proceedings. Rejected. Irrelevant and unreliable speculation. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Dr. Ostlund was very credible. Mr. Anderson's analysis, based upon y~he Sarasota- Naples comparison, which tended to refute the testimony of Dr. Ostlund, was given greater weight by the Hearing Officer. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Adams, Esquire Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Feaman, Adams, Harris, Department of Highway Fernandez & Deutch, P.A. Safety And Motor Vehicles Corporate Plaza, Fourth Floor Neil Kirkman Building 4700 N.W. Second Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 S. William Fuller, Jr., Esq. Vasilis C. Katsafanas, Esquire Fuller Johnson & Farrell Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Post Office Box 1739 Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler Tallahassee, Florida 32302 11 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motors Vehicles William J. Whalen, Esquire Department of Highway Office of General Counsel Safety and Motor Vehicles General Motors Corporation B439 Neil Kirkman Building New Center One Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232 Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire General Counsel S. Thomas Wienner, Esquire Departments of Highway Dykema Gossett Safety and Motor Vehicles 35th Floor Neil Kirklan Building 400 Renaissance Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Detroit, Michigan 48243
The Issue Whether Respondent, Maserati North America, Inc.’s ("MNA"), proposed 2017 Commercial Policy Program ("2017 Program") is a modification of the franchise agreement between MNA and Petitioner, New Country Motor Cars of Palm Beach, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Palm Beach ("Palm Beach"), or Petitioner Recovery Racing, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Ft. Lauderdale ("Fort Lauderdale"); and, if so, whether it is fair and not prohibited by section 320.641(3), Florida Statutes (2016). Whether MNA’s proposed modifications to the Existing Franchise Agreements with Petitioners are fair and not prohibited under section 320.641(3).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the Pre-hearing Stipulation of the parties and the record as a whole, the following relevant and material Findings of Fact are made2/:
Recommendation Based upon 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: (1) DISMISSING Petitioners’ claims regarding MNA’s 2017 Commercial Policy Bonus Program; and (2) GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, Petitioners’ claims regarding modifications in the Proposed New Agreement, as set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2018.
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 issue is whether Petitioner's applications to establish new dealerships for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Shanghai Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (JMSTAR), and Shanghai Shenke Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (SHEN), should be granted. PRELIMANARY STATEMENT In the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 21, May 23, 2008, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) published two Notices of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of Less than 300,000 Population. Said notices advised that Petitioner Gator Moto, LLC and Gator Moto, LLC (Petitioner) intended to establish new dealerships for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Shanghai Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (JMSTAR), and Shanghai Shenke Motorcycle Co., Ltd. (SHEN). On or about June 3, 2008, Respondent Austin Global Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a New Scooters 4 Less (Respondent) filed two complaints with DHSMV about the proposed new motorcycle dealerships. DHSMV referred both complaints to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 10, 2008. On July 2, 2008, Respondent filed its Compliance with Initial Order. On July 7, 2008, Petitioner filed Petitioner's Compliance with Initial Order Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Nos. 08-2735 and 08-2736. This is the only communication that DOAH has received from Petitioner. On July 23, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Barbara J. Staros entered an Order of Consolidation for DOAH Case Nos. 08-2735 and 08-2736. On July 24, 2008, Judge Staros issued a Notice of Hearing, scheduling a final hearing on December 4, 2008. On November 26, 2008, Respondent filed its Compliance with Pre-hearing Instructions. Petitioner did not respond to the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. On December 1, 2008, Judge Staros issued an Amended Notice of Hearing. The amended notice only changed the commencement time for the hearing. DOAH subsequently transferred these consolidated cases to the undersigned. On the morning of the December 4, 2008, hearing, DHSMV advised the undersigned's office that DHSMV had failed to arrange for the appearance of a court reporter at the hearing. Accordingly, the undersigned issued an Order Granting Continuance and requiring the parties to confer and provide DOAH with mutually-agreeable dates for re-scheduling the hearing. On December 17, 2008, Respondent filed its unilateral Compliance with Order Granting Continuance. Respondent filed this pleading after an unsuccessful attempt to confer with Petitioner. On December 18, 2008, the undersigned issued a Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-hearing Instruction. The notice scheduled the hearing for February 9, 2008. On February 3, 2007, Respondent filed its unilateral Compliance with Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. Petitioner did not file a response to the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. When the hearing commenced, Petitioner did not make an appearance. Respondent made an appearance and presented the testimony of Colin Austin, Respondent's Managing Member. Respondent did not offer any exhibits. The hearing transcript was not filed with DOAH. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has standing to protest Petitioner's applications pursuant to Section 320.642(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008). According to DHSMV's published notice, Petitioner intended to establish two new motorcycle dealerships at 2106 Northwest 67th Place, Suite 15, Gainesville, Florida, on or after May 9, 2008. This location is only 4.5 miles from Respondent's place of business. At some point in time, Petitioner relocated its business to 7065 Northwest 22nd Street, Suite A, Gainesville, Florida. This location is only 5.3 miles from Respondent's place of business. Petitioner's application indicated that Petitioner intended to establish itself as a dealer of SHEN and JMSTAR motorcycles. Currently, Respondent sells those motorcycles under License No. VF/1020597/1. Respondent currently supplies itself with SHEN and JMSTAR products from a United States distributor. Respondent has a good faith belief that Petitioner intends to import the motorcycles and related products directly from the Chinese manufacturers. In that case, Petitioner would be able to sell the products at a lower price than Respondent and thereby deny Respondent the opportunity for reasonable growth. Petitioner did not notify DOAH about a change of address. DOAH's notices and orders directed to Petitioner at its address of record have not been returned. Petitioner has not communicated with DOAH since filing a response to the Initial Order. Petitioner did not make an appearance at the hearing. Apparently, Petitioner has abandoned its applications to establish the new dealerships.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying Petitioner's applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Collin Austin Austin Global Enterprise, LLC 118 Northwest 14th Avenue, Suite D Gainesville, Florida 32601 Justin Jackrel Gator Moto, LLC 4337 Northwest 35th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32605 Justin Jackrel Gator Moto, LLC 2106 Northwest 67th Place, Suite 15 Gainesville, Florida 32653 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
