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 issues in this case are whether Petitioner has standing to protest the establishment of an additional autocycle dealership; and, if so, whether Petitioner is adequately representing this line of vehicles in the relevant territory or community pursuant to section 320.642, Florida Statutes (2019).1/
Findings Of Fact iMotorsports is located in Pinellas County. No evidence was provided regarding its address or location. The parties stipulated, however, that iMotorsports is located 45.9 miles from Gables Motorsports, and is outside of a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership, Gables Motorsports. Gables Motorsports is located in Pasco County, Florida at 28009 Wesley Chapel Boulevard, Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and University of Florida, Bureau of Economic Research, the population of Pasco County, Florida, was 464,697 as of April 1, 2010. The estimated population as of April 1, 2018, for this same area was 515,077. Vanderhall manufactures "autocycles" or two-passenger, three-wheeled motor vehicles and sells them nationally. At the time of the hearing there were eight to ten dealerships distributing the Vanderhall autocycles in Florida, and there were 55 Vanderhall dealerships or distributors nationwide. In these proceedings, Vanderhall seeks to allow Gables Motorsports to serve as a dealership to sell and service the Vanderhall autocycles. Although no franchise agreement was offered into evidence, based on Mr. Saba's testimony, the undersigned finds in June or July 2018, iMotorsports entered into an agreement with Vanderhall to sell its autocycles. According to the documentation offered by Vanderhall, iMotorsports has sold 15 Vanderhall autocycles since it became a Vanderhall dealership, approximately 14 months ago. None of those sales were to households within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership at Gables Motorsports. Mr. Saba agreed iMotorsports had not had any sales to households in the 12.5 mile radius around Gables Motorsports, but argued at the hearing that verbal promises were made by Vanderhall that it would not establish any other Vanderhall dealerships in Florida. Ultimate Findings Regarding Standing iMotorsports is an existing dealership that sells Vanderhall autocycles. iMotorsports is not within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership at Gables Motorsports. iMotorsports has failed to establish that during the 12-month period preceding the filing of the application for the proposed dealership by Gables Motorsports and Vanderhall, iMotorsports or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of the Vanderhall autocycles to registered household addresses within a 12.5 mile radius of Gables Motorsports. Therefore, iMotorsports does not have standing to bring this challenge pursuant to section 320.642(3).
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 finding iMotorsports lacks standing, and dismissing iMotorsports' challenge of the Respondents' new dealership application for the sale of Vanderhall vehicles at Gables Motorsports. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 10th day of December, 2019.
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 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
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Errol H. Powell an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the Petitioner’s Joint Notice of Dismissal and Withdrawal of Notice of Termination, copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this alo day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services this A \g day of June, Bureau of Issuance Oversight 2014. Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles . 4 fe. vars sas Malin: Vrragele Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Nalini Vinayak, Dealer License Administrator Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Copies furnished to: Filed June 27, 2014 10:27 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section R. Craig Spickard Kurkin Brandes LLP 105 West 5th Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 cspickard@kb-attorneys.com John J. Sullivan Hogan Lovells US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 John.sullivan@hoganlovells.com J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Andy.bertron@nelsonmullins.com Errol H. Powell Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review. one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a motor vehicle dealer license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Global Express, LLC. (Global Express), is a limited liability company which has submitted to Respondent an application for a license as a motor vehicle dealer under the fictitious name of Auto Zone Auto Sales (the subject application). Johnny Romero and Rosangela Romero, who are husband and wife, are the members and managers of Global Express. Mr. Romero is also known as Johnny Guillermo Romero Peguero.1 Both Mr. and Mrs. Romero signed the subject application on behalf of Global Express before a notary public on May 4, 2009. The following language is contained above the signature lines: Under penalty of perjury, I do swear or affirm that the information contained in this application is true and correct . . . Part 5 of the application form requires that the “applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director” answer yes or no to certain questions (the Certifications). Each dealership officer is required to answer these questions under penalties of perjury. Relevant to this proceeding, both Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the negative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever had a surety bond cancelled? Relevant to this proceeding, both Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the negative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever been denied or had a dealer license suspended or revoked in Florida or any other jurisdiction? In addition to the foregoing, Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the affirmative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever been a licensed dealer in Florida or any other jurisdiction? Under their affirmative response Mr. and Mrs. Romero inserted information reflecting that they had previously been licensed dealers under the license numbered VI/1018283. Pursuant to application executed by Mr. and Mrs. Romero on January 11, 2007, Respondent issued motor vehicle dealer license numbered VI/1018283 to Pronto Cars Corp. (Pronto). Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license bond was cancelled by its surety, Nova Casualty Company, by notice dated December 18, 2007. Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license was suspended by Respondent by Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint dated March 20, 2008. That case was assigned the following case number by Respondent: DMV-08-479. The Order suspended Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license because Pronto’s surety had cancelled its bond. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Romero ever received a copy of the Emergency Final Order and Administrative Complaint in case DMV-08-479. That conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Pierre-Lys, acting in her capacity as a compliance officer for Respondent, served a copy of the Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint on Mr. Romero on April 16, 2008. Mr. Romero, on behalf of Pronto, signed and submitted an election of rights form dated May 5, 2008, which provided, in relevant part, as follows: “I have read the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter [DMV-08-479] and understand my options.” Immediately before Mr. Romero’s signature is a check in a box indicating that Mr. Romero was exercising the following option: “I have not obtained a surety bond and wish to voluntarily relinquish my motor vehicle license. I have completed and am returning the Voluntary Relinquishment of License form within 21 days from the date of my receipt of this administrative complaint.” On May 23, 2008,2 Respondent issued its Final Order in its case number DMV-08-479, thereby canceling Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer’s license. The Final Order directed Pronto to surrender its license and all dealer and temporary tags in its possession. The Final Order also contained the following: It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint filed herein is DISMISSED and this case is hereby CLOSED. Mr. Romero called Respondent’s compliance officer, Luz Irizarry, on March 6, 2009, told her that he wanted to obtain a motor vehicle dealer license, and asked whether he would have to go to a school for new dealers. Ms. Irizarry referred the inquiry to Ms. Buck, who determined that Mr. Romero would have to attend the school because Pronto had received consumer complaints, Pronto’s surety had cancelled its bond, and Pronto’s license had been suspended and subsequently revoked. On March 9, 2009, Ms. Irizarry informed Mr. Romero of the reasons he would have to go to dealer school, and specifically discussed with him the fact that Pronto’s operations had been suspended. When he signed the Certifications on May 4, 2009, Mr. Romero had actual knowledge that Pronto’s surety bond had been revoked and that Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license had been suspended. Mr. Romero’s contends that he was confused about his answers because he thought he had bought the surety bond for its full term and because he thought the Final Order entered by Respondent dismissed the suspension of his license. Those contentions are rejected. It is clear from his answer pertaining to the license that had been issued to Pronto that Mr. Romero understood as a principal of Pronto he would have to disclose the revocation of Pronto’s surety bond and the suspension of Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license on the subject application. Mr. and Mr. Romero’s Certifications under section 5 of the subject application pertaining to the revocation of a surety bond and the suspension of a motor vehicle dealer license are willful, material misrepresentations of fact. On February 26, 2008, Respondent discovered that Pronto had moved its business location and was doing business at a location that had not been approved by Respondent. On April 1, 2009, Mrs. Romero drove a motor vehicle displaying a “For Sale” sign. The vehicle had a temporary tag on it that had been issued to Pronto. The possession of that temporary tag violated the Final Order entered in Respondent’s case number DMV-08-479, which ordered Pronto to immediately surrender all temporary tags to Respondent. On April 27, 2009, Mrs. Romero displayed, or acquiesced in the display of, another car with a “For Sale” sign on it parked in front of Global Express’s proposed, but unlicensed, location. That car had a temporary tag on it that had been issued to Pronto. The temporary tag was filled out to show the name of another dealer. The possession of that temporary tag violated the Final Order entered in Respondent’s case number DMV-08-479, which ordered Pronto to immediately surrender all temporary tags to Respondent. On April 2, 2009, Mr. Romero had 13 motor vehicles titled in his name. Although he asserts that some of the motor vehicles were bought in conjunction with a taxi service he operated, he admitted that some of these vehicles had been purchased for resale. Mr. Romero acquired a 1966 Ford motor vehicle on May 9, 209, and sold the vehicle on May 21, 2009. Mr. Romero acquired a 1999 Chevrolet motor vehicle on May 18, 2009, and sold the vehicle on May 25, 2009. Mr. Romero acquired another Chevrolet motor vehicle on May 20, 2008, and sold the vehicle on May 31, 2009. Respondent established that during April and May 2009, Mr. Romero engaged in the business of dealing in motor vehicles without a license. On March 30, 2009, Mr. Romero paid Respondent for the registrations of ten motor vehicles with worthless checks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny the subject application. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2009.
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 Finish Line Scooters, 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 CHUA motor vehicles, the line-make to be sold by Finish Line Scooters, 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 Scooter Elite, LLC, and granting the Petitioners' request to establish a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership for the sale of CHUA 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: 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 Kirit Kana Scooter Elite, LLC 7204 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33707 John V. Leonard Finish Line Scooters, LLC 6600 Gulf Boulevard St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706 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
