The Issue Whether the Petitioners' proposed dealership should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 41, three separate Notices of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population were published. The first notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The second notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The third notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. By letter dated October 16, 2008, Respondent filed the following letter of protest with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: In regards to the intent of [Galaxy] to establish a Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group LTD (SHWI) with [Treasure Coast] for the sale of motorcycles at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie, Fl [sic] 34952. This letter represents a written complaint to their application for this dealership, because we already represent said dealership. This letter also represents a complaint on the following conditions: The proposed dealership would be within 20 miles of our dealership, as measured by straight line distance. They are 8.61 miles away per mapquest. The proposed dealership is to be located within the contractual area outlined in our dealer agreement, as we have a 20 mile exclusivity. We have made more than 25% of our retail sales to persons whose registered household addresses are within 20 straight line miles of the proposed dealership during the past 12 month period. We have established three out of four of the conditions exist, so we are submitting this complaint protesting the establishment of the above dealership. By letter dated October 22, 2008, the Department referred this matter to DOAH. The letter of referral provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of section 120.57, Florida Statutes, we are enclosing a Complaint and supporting documents pursuant to 320.642, Florida Statutes, filed by Wendy and Mark Mourning, on behalf of the above Respondent, thus requiring a hearing under the term of this statute. [Respondent] is protesting the establishment of [Treasure Coast] for the line-make Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South US 1, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952. The protest filed by Respondent was timely. Respondent's dealership is within 8.61 miles of the proposed site. Mr. Mourning verified the driving distance and presented the measured distance as computed by the website Mapquest. Further, the driving time between the two points is less than 30 minutes. Respondent has dealer agreements to sell various lines of motorcycles, including the following: motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI); motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ); and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG). Although Respondent still has a valid dealer agreement as to motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI), Respondent has discontinued the sale of those motorcycles. Mr. Mourning testified that Respondent has no objection to permitting Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI). As to motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ), and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG), Respondent has served the area for not less than two years and has successfully promoted those two lines of motorcycles within its territory or community. Respondent established that its sales of those motorcycles are within 12.5 miles of the proposed dealership. Respondent adequately represents Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) and Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) in Respondent’s community or territory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order authorizing Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at Petitioners' proposed dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Mark Mourning and Wendy Mourning WenMark Inc., d/b/a All The Wheel Toys 1540 Northwest Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34994 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Guy Young J & F South Florida Investments, Inc. d/b/a Treasure Coast Scooters and Things 7320 South US 1 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344
The Issue Whether Petitioner has standing under section 320.642, Florida Statutes, to file a petition with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) protesting the establishment of an additional dealership at a proposed location.
Findings Of Fact As defined in section 320.60(11)(a), Recovery Racing is an existing motor vehicle dealer, and is a party to a Maserati franchise agreement. Recovery Racing sells Maserati vehicles from a licensed franchise located at 5750 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As defined in section 320.60(8), Maserati is a licensee. Rick Case is the additional Maserati dealer that Maserati seeks to establish at 3500 Weston Road, Davie, Florida (proposed location). The Proposed Location is approximately 18 miles from Recovery Racing’s dealership located at 5750 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Recovery Racing is not within a radius of 12.5 miles of the proposed Rick Case location; accordingly, Recovery Racing is not claiming standing pursuant to section 320.642(3)(b)1. Recovery Racing relies on section 320.642(3)(b)2., to establish standing. Mr. Stockton, the expert presented by Recovery Racing, opined that Recovery Racing has standing to protest because it made more than 25 percent of its retail sales to persons with registered household addresses within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed location. Mr. Stockton’s opinion is based on his assumption that “registered household address,” as set forth in section 320.642(3)(b)2., means the address where the persons who use or drive the vehicle reside, regardless of the household addresses where the purchased vehicles are registered. Mr. Stockton explained that in making his calculation, he did not rely on vehicle registration data; rather, he relied on the dealership sales files for each sale, and information provided to him by Mr. Hayim, the general manager for Recovery Racing. Mr. Stockton’s opinion on standing was also based on his definition of “retail sales” as set forth in section 320.642(3)(b)2. According to Mr. Stockton, sales to businesses are included as retail sales where the business is an “instrument” of the transaction, and the person using the car is a “beneficiary.” In contrast, he explained that a sale to a business is excluded as a retail sale when the business is the “beneficiary” of the transaction. Turning to the time periods referenced in section 320.642(3)(b)2., Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-7.004(9) sets forth the manner in which the 36-month period within which the 12-month period for standing is calculated. The period ends on the last day of the month preceding the month in which notice is published, running through the end of the month prior to the date of publication of the notice. Given the date of the notice in this case, which is May 12, 2014, the relevant period in the instant case ends on April 30, 2014, and begins 36 months before that date on May 1, 2011. In calculating the time periods detailed in section 320.642(3)(b)2., Mr. Stockton was unaware of the Florida Administrative Code rule addressing the calculation of the 12-month period within a 36-month period. Accordingly, he began and ended his calculations mid-month, on May 19, 2011. He explained that there were approximately 730 possible 12-month periods to review; each one starting on a different day, going forward 12 months. Mr. Stockton’s method of reviewing the statutory time periods does not comply with the standards set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. In making a standing calculation, the automotive industry calculates the percentage using the following fraction: the denominator is the total number of retail sales, and the numerator reflects the number of retail sales that are within the geographic radius required by the statute (referred to as “the ring”). The records attached to Mr. Stockton’s reports, which are tabs 6 through 128 (although not consecutively numbered) in Exhibit 1, contain the documents that Mr. Stockton relied upon in making his standing calculation. Mr. Stockton calculated the fraction at least two different times; both calculations were presented to the undersigned. The first calculations were reported as follows: Date range Sales within ring Nationwide sales Percent within ring 5/19/2011-5/18/2012 32 127 25.20% 5/20/2011-5/19/2012 32 127 25.20% 5/21/2011-5/20/2012 32 127 25.20% 5/22/2011-5/21/2012 32 126 25.40% 5/23/2011-5/22/2012 33 127 25.98% Mr. Stockton’s revised calculations, after receiving more information about some of the sales, were reported as follows: Date range Sales within ring Nationwide sales Percent within ring 5/19/2011-5/18/2012 34 127 26.77% 5/20/2011-5/19/2012 34 127 26.77% 5/21/2011-5/20/2012 34 127 26.77% 5/22/2011-5/21/2012 34 126 26.98% 5/23/2011-5/22/2012 35 127 27.56% Sixteen of the sales included in the “sales within ring” (using either of the two reports detailed above) are not supported by any vehicle registration data. Those 16 sales are, as enumerated by the tabs attached to Mr. Stockton’s report, the following: 18, 19, 24, 34, 37, 43, 51, 61, 68, 76, 109, 112, 117, 118, 119, and 122. Interestingly, for two of the sales, tab 37 and tab 43, Mr. Stockton knew that the cars were registered in New Hampshire and Orlando, Florida, respectively. He included them, however, in the sales within the ring because he had knowledge that the vehicles were being used by persons with household addresses within the ring. Mr. Stockton’s method of reviewing the “end user” of a vehicle sale is wholly dependent on documents that vary from sales file to sales file and on information given to him by the general manager of the dealership. This methodology is subjective and easily manipulated by an interested party. Mr. Stockton also included two sales, tabs 24 and 122, that were sold to non-retail buyers, who purchase the vehicle wholesale. He included both because he had acquired information that the “end users” of the vehicles were persons with household addresses within the ring. Maserati’s expert, Mr. Farhat, opined that Recovery Racing did not have standing to protest because Recovery Racing did not meet the 25 percent requirement of retail sales within the 12.5 mile radius, within the time period mandated by the statute. Mr. Farhat’s calculations were based on the assumption that the statutory term “registered household addresses” means the household addresses to which vehicles are registered with the Department. Given this assumption, he reviewed the vehicle registration data for each retail sale. Mr. Farhat obtained the data from two authoritative sources in the automotive industry: Experian and IHS. Both of these entities obtain their vehicle registration data from state departments of motor vehicles. Mr. Farhat defined the term “retail sale” as sales to individuals, and to businesses that purchase less than 10 vehicles in a year. He explained that this definition is used industry-wide. Mr. Farhat ultimately opined that Recovery Racing never got close to reaching the 25 percent requirement, in any of the potential rolling 12-month periods in the preceding 36- months. Mr. Farhat’s testimony as to the definition of “registered household addresses” is found credible, as it gives meaning to all of the language contained in the statute. Mr. Stockton’s definition is not supported by the statutory language, is unreliable, subject to manipulation, fails to give any meaning to the word “registered” as used in the statute, and inserts the term “end user” into the statute. Mr. Farhat’s testimony as to the definition of “retail sales” is also found credible, as it is an objective standard used by the automotive industry. Mr. Stockton’s definition of “retail sales” is suspect in that it requires investigation into whether a business is a “beneficiary” or an “instrument”—-again, information that is highly subjective and easily manipulated. The plain meaning of the words “registered household addresses,” as used in section 320.642(3)(b)2., is the household address to which a vehicle is registered with the Department. Given that 16 of the sales included in the ring by Mr. Stockton had no vehicle registration data, they cannot be included in the numerator. Two of those 16 sales were also not retail sales, as defined by the automotive industry. Recovery Racing failed to meet its burden of proving that it has standing to protest the proposed Rick Case dealership location, as it did not establish that 25 percent of its retail sales, sold during the defined statutory timeframe, were within the 12.5 mile radius set forth in section 320.642(3)(b)2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Recovery Racing’s protest of the proposed establishment of an additional dealer for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 17th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough, LLP Suite 202 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Robert E. Sickles, Esquire Hinshaw and Culbertson, LLP Suite 500 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Elias C. Schwartz, Esquire Schwartz and Englander, P.A. 1900 Glades Road, Suite 102 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 (eServed) Robert D. Cultice, Esquire Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door, LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (eServed) Richard N. Sox, Esquire Jason T. Allen, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Terry L. Rhodes, Executive Director Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-443 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 (eServed) Steve Hurm, General Counsel Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 (eServed)
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.
Findings Of Fact On October 17, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 42, a Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population was published. The notice provided that Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors intended to allow the establishment of Beach Cycle of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Summit Huawin Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (POPC) at Ravens Wood Road, Fort Lauderdale (Broward County), Florida 33312, on or after November 5, 2008. On November 12, 2008, the Respondent timely filed a protest of the establishment of the Petitioners' dealership. Respondent alleged that it currently services customers for the line-make proposed by the Petitioners and that its location is within 12.5 miles of the location proposed by the Petitioners. The evidence presented established that the Respondent's dealership is within 8.5 miles of the proposed site. Mr. McMahon verified the driving distance and presented the measured distance as computed by the website Mapquest. Further, the driving time between the two points is less than 30 minutes. The Respondent has served the area for not less than 2 years and has successfully promoted the vehicles proposed to be sold by the line-make proposed by the Petitioners. The Respondent established that its sales are within 12.5 miles of the proposed dealership. The Respondent established that it currently markets the motorcycle to be sold by the proposed dealership. More specifically, the Respondent offered testimony that it has an agreement for the same line-make vehicle to be sold by the proposed dealer. Notice of the formal hearing was provided to all parties of record at their addresses of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order denying the approval of the Petitioners' proposed dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Electra Theodorides-Bustle Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Paul J. Lane, Esquire 2755 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Joel Ribler Beach Cycle of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. 2190 Southwest 31st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Ronald Gardner Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors 11 Technology Way Steubenville, Ohio 43952
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether two applications for new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships filed by Puma Cycles Corporation and Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC (Respondents), should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the two applications filed by the Respondents to establish new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships at Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC, for the sale of line-make FSTI motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2012.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Todd P. Resavage, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the Parties’ Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction based on a Settlement Stipulation entered into between the parties, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly it is FOUND and ORDERED as follows: 1. That Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per count for a total of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) to be paid on or before September 30, 2013. All payments are to be made by returning a copy of the order with payment to: Filed August 29, 2013 2:08 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Office of General Counsel 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432, MS-61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2. If Respondent pays 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 the amount specified in paragraph one, on the day following the due date specified in paragraph one, Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license will be automatically suspended and Respondent will cease to do business as a motor vehicle dealer. 3: If after suspension Respondent pays the amount specified in paragraph one above within 30 days following the date of suspension, its motor vehicle dealer license will immediately be reinstated without further penalties or sanctions. 4. If Respondent fails to pay the amount due by the 30" day following the date of suspension, on the 31" day following the date of suspension Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license shall be revoked by the Department without further notice. If the Department suspends or revokes Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license for non-payment as specified in paragraphs two and three above, said suspension or revocation shall be without recourse to the Respondent and Respondent hereby expressly waives any right to appeal or otherwise contest the suspension and revocation. DONE AND ORDERED this a | day of August, 2013, at Tallahassee. Leon County, Florida. Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 i) Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services this 2” day of August, 2013. ane , t leisnd ta Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Yicens 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 Rule 9.110, Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB:jde Copies furnished: Cathy Coleman Regional Administrator Dealer License Section Teresa Williams, Esquire Williams and Trese 12 Southeast 7" Street, Suite 703 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
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 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
