The Issue The issue is whether Nissan North America, Inc.'s (Nissan) rejection of the proposed transfer of the equity interest in Love Nissan, Inc. (Love), from Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen to Marilyn Halleen, is in violation of the laws regulating the licensing of motor vehicle dealers and manufacturers, maintaining competition, providing consumer protection and fair trade and providing minorities with opportunities for full participation as motor vehicle dealers, as set forth in Sections 320.61-320.70, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Nissan is a "licensee" as defined by Section 320.60(8), Florida Statutes. Love is a "motor vehicle dealer" as defined by Section 320.60(11)(a)1, Florida Statutes. Love serves a territory centered on Homosassa, Florida. Nissan and Love are parties to a Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (Agreement), which is an "agreement" or "franchise agreement," as defined by Section 320.60(1), Florida Statutes. Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen became owners of Love as the result of a 1999 gift of the equity of Love from Robert's father and Chad's grandfather. Subsequent to the donation, Robert became a 90 percent owner of Love and Chad became a ten percent owner. Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen entered into the Agreement with Nissan on March 4, 1999. Since that time Robert Halleen has served as the Dealer Principal and Principal Owner of Love Nissan, and Chad Halleen has served as the Executive Manager and Other Owner. The Agreement has never been amended. The Agreement clearly states that Nissan relied on the personal qualifications of the Principal Owner, Other Owner, and Executive Manager in entering into the Agreement. In addition to personal qualifications, the Agreement recites expertise, reputation, integrity, experience, and ability, as characteristics expected of the Principal Owner, Other Owner, and Executive Manager. Since Robert and Chad Halleen became owners of Love the dealership has never met the regional average sales penetration. The regional average sales penetration is the measurement used by Nissan to evaluate the sales performance of each of its dealers. Subsequent to the inception of the Agreement, Nissan has issued multiple Notices of Default to Love citing Love's poor sales performance. In an effort to facilitate Love's success, Nissan contracted their primary market area on several occasions. This and other efforts to bolster Love's performance failed. As a result, Nissan issued a Notice of Termination of the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement between itself and Love, dated April 1, 2004. This precipitated a protest and a formal hearing before Administrative Law Judge Ella Jane Davis who recommended that DHSMV dismiss the protest and ratify the Notice of Termination. As noted above, DHSMV has not issued a final order. Because it has not, and because an appeal could follow, Nissan has not yet entered into a franchise with a new dealer for the Homosassa primary market area. It is Nissan's intention to award the area to a qualified minority candidate. Eleven days after the issuance of Judge Davis's order, on July 25, 2005, Robert and Chad Halleen notified Nissan of their intent to sell all of their stock in Love to Marilyn Halleen. In a short letter to Nissan, the selling price was said to be $100 with an increase to $5,000,000 should the sale ultimately be made to a third party. The dealership, if sold on the open market, would bring much more than $100. It could sell for as much as five million dollars. The letter also averred that there would not be a change in the executive management. The decision to sell all of the stock in Love to Marilyn Halleen was made by Robert Halleen. Chad Halleen was instructed by his father to comply with his decision to sell and he did as instructed. Prior to the issuance of Judge Davis's Recommended Order, Robert and Chad Halleen decided that if the termination case had an unfavorable outcome, they would avoid it by selling Love to a family member. They attempted to give effect to this course of action by discussing with Robert Halleen's father the possibility of transferring ownership to him. Robert and Chad Halleen desired to keep the dealership in the family and to ensure that Chad remained employed. Pursuant to the contemplated transfer to Robert Halleen's father, Chad Halleen would continue as Executive Manager, which was also the case in the proposed transfer to Marilyn Halleen. The discussion with Robert Halleen's father did not ripen into a course of action. During their tenure at Love, Robert and Chad Halleen informally divided the operational responsibilities between themselves. Chad Halleen was primarily responsible for the sales department and Robert Halleen focused on supervising the day-to-day operations of the parts, service, and accounting departments. However, it is clear that Robert Halleen, has been since the inception of the Agreement, and was, at least up to the date of the formal hearing, in ultimate overall charge of all of the operations of Love. Robert Halleen asserted at the hearing that he would abandon his role in the management of Love. Love attempted to prove that Chad Halleen was capable of successfully managing the operation without the aid of his father. However, the evidence taken as a whole, indicated that he had never operated the dealership without the assistance of Robert Halleen and that he would have difficulty doing so without that assistance. Subsequent to the proposed transfer, the management of Love would, allegedly, consist of Marilyn Halleen and Chad Halleen. They would be, under the Agreement, the "executive management," which is the term used in the Agreement to describe the Dealer Principal and the Executive Manager. It is not necessary under the Agreement, for a Dealer Principal to be actively involved in the daily business of the dealership, and because a Dealer Principal may own dealerships in more than one geographical area, it is not unusual to find a Dealer Principal who is not active in the day-to-day management of dealerships she or he owns. However, in this case it is contemplated, and Marilyn Halleen has so stated, that she and Chad Halleen would operate the business together. Currently, Marilyn Halleen's participation in the operation of the dealership has been working as a bookkeeper in the accounting department. Marilyn Halleen stated that should the transfer be approved, she would make the decisions about running the dealership, how the dealership is capitalized, new car sales, used car sales, allocation and ordering, marketing, management of the parts and service departments, and all of the other myriad responsibilities incumbent on a manager of an automobile dealership. However, her work experience does not qualify her to successfully accomplish all of these tasks and this plan is contrary to the assertion in the notice to Nissan that there would be no change in executive management. Marilyn Halleen has never owned a dealership or any other business. Her management experience is limited to filling a position as an office manager in a Buick dealership many years ago. In various automobile dealerships she has worked as a title clerk, receptionist, cashier, and in a warranty department. Prior to becoming bookkeeper at Love she worked full-time selling cosmetics for Mary Kay. Nissan was unaware of the details of Marilyn Halleen's business experience, or lack of it, at the time they determined that they would reject the proposed transfer. However, the notice to Love that the proposed transfer was rejected, dated September 20, 2005, recited in the attachment that the rejection was based on Nissan's belief the transfer was a sham. Marilyn Halleen's lack of experience is evidence tending to prove that the transfer was a sham. To find as a fact that Robert and Chad Halleen were really going to give Marilyn Halleen complete ownership and control over Love would require a suspension of disbelief. Having observed the lackluster performance of Robert and Chad Halleen over a five-year period, Nissan reasonably concluded that Marilyn Halleen was unlikely to ramp up Love's performance. Although Section 320.943(2), Florida Statutes, does not require that a transfer of an equity interest be at arms- length, the fact that a purported transfer is not an arms-length transaction, when considered with other evidence, may tend to demonstrate, as it does in this case, that the purported transfer is a sham. The fact that the purchase price is remarkably below market value does not in every case mean that a purported transfer is a sham. Under the facts of this case, however, the below market sales price tends to prove that the purported transfer is illusory. The evidence, taken as a whole, proves that the purported transfer is an artifice or device designed to avoid the consequences of the poor performance of Love while under the command of Robert and Chad Halleen. Thus the proposed transfer is not a real transfer; it is a sham designed to avoid Judge Davis's Recommended Order upholding the termination. Marilyn Halleen, although a human being separate from her spouse and off-spring, cannot be considered "any other person or persons." She is the alter ego of Robert and Chad Halleen and, should the transfer be approved, the evidence demonstrates she will be a mere agent or tool of the current owners and the inept management of Love will continue. It was not proven that Marilyn Halleen lacked good character as that term is used in Section 320.643(2), Florida Statutes, which governs the transfer of an equity interest in a dealership. The question of whether or not the proposed transfer involved a change in executive management at Love, which might trigger consideration of Section 320.643(1) or 320.644, Florida Statutes, a question advanced by Nissan, at the hearing, and in Nissan's Proposed Recommended Order, need not be addressed for the reasons set forth in paragraph 23, above. In order for those sections to be invoked there must first be a valid transfer.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order stating that pursuant to Nissan's verified Petition for Determination of Invalid Proposed Transfer Pursuant to Section 320.643, Florida Statutes, and Notice of Rejection of Proposed Transfer, no transfer under Section 320.643, Florida Statutes, is proposed and Nissan's rejection of it was proper. Further, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles should enter a Final Order dismissing Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen's Petition for Determination of Wrongful Turndown. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 S. Keith Hutto, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP 1320 Main Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1267 John W. Forehand, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 125 South Gadsden Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1525 Alex Kurkin, Esquire Pathman Lewis, LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2400 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Chrysler is a manufacturer of trucks and automobiles, including Jeep trucks and Eagle automobiles. Milton Dodge is a proposed dealer/operator of a proposed new Jeep-Eagle dealership. Milton Dodge currently sells Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge and Dodge trucks. Don Dawson is an existing franchised Jeep-Eagle dealership located on U. S. 29, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. Don Dawson is located approximately 17.5 miles from the proposed Milton Dodge dealership location. Santa Rosa County, where the new dealership is to be located, has a population of less than 300,000 persons. All of the parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. The Application for A New Dealership. Chrysler has sought a permit to establish an additional Jeep-Eagle dealership for the sale of Jeep trucks and Eagle automobiles in Milton, Santa Rosa County, Florida. Don Dawson filed a timely protest to Chrysler's application pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. The Community or Territory. The Milton Dodge proposed new dealership is to be located on U. S. 90, West of Milton, Santa Rosa County, Florida. Chrysler assigns its franchised dealerships a primary area of responsibility called a "sales locality." The sales locality of each dealer is specified in the dealer agreement between the dealer and Chrysler. Each sales locality consists of post office towns. A post office town is an area within which mail is delivered from a particular post office. Post office towns are not limited to political boundaries. The sales locality for Milton Dodge, the Milton sales locality, consists of the towns of Milton, Bagdad, and Harold, all of which are located in Santa Rosa County, Florida. To the west and southwest of the Milton sales locality is the Pensacola sales locality. The Pensacola sales locality consists of the towns of Molino, Cantonment, Gonzalez, Gulf Breeze, Lillian and Pensacola. All of the towns, except Lillian, Alabama, are located in Escambia County, Florida. Pursuant to its dealer agreement with Chrysler, Don Dawson is located in the Pensacola sales locality. To the east and southeast of the Milton sales locality is the Fort Walton Beach sales locality. This sales locality consists of the towns of Niceville, Shalimar, Destin, Mary Esther, Valparaiso and Fort Walton Beach, and Eglin Air Force Base, all of which are located in Okaloosa County, Florida. There is a Jeep-Eagle dealership, Lee Jeep Eagle, located in Fort Walton Beach. The sales locality assigned to a dealer is representative of the area in which the dealer is expected to have a competitive advantage over the same line-make dealers simply because of location. The Milton sales locality and the Pensacola sales locality are separate and distinct markets. The evidence proved, and the Petitioners and Don Dawson both agreed in their proposed recommended orders, that the relevant community or territory in this proceeding is the Milton sales locality. Adequacy of Representation. General. Once the community or territory has been identified, Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, requires a determination as to whether existing dealers have been providing "adequate representation" of the line-make of the new dealership. In order to determine whether there has been adequate representation in the Milton sales locality of Jeep trucks and Eagle automobiles, eleven factors set out in Section 320.642(2)(b), Florida Statutes, are to be considered. In order to determine whether existing dealers have been providing adequate representation, a reasonable standard of performance may be determined as a measure of proper performance. The standard(s) for comparison in this matter is described, infra, in section II.D. of this Recommended Order. Section 320.642(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes; Impact on Existing Dealers. Only the possible impact on Don Dawson, the protesting dealer in this proceeding, may be considered in applying this factor. New vehicle transactions, including sales, servicing, parts' sales and financing and insurance, represent approximately 70% of Don Dawson's income. In 1990, Don Dawson sold new motor vehicles to persons whose addresses were within the Milton sales locality. In 1989, Don Dawson sold nine automobiles and trucks (5% of its total 178 sales) to customers whose addresses were within the Milton sales locality. In 1989, approximately 59% of Don Dawson's total sales were to persons whose addresses were within the Pensacola sales locality. During 1990, approximately 55% of Don Dawson's new motor vehicle sales were to persons whose addresses were within 20 miles of the proposed new dealership location. In 1989, Don Dawson had a gross profit per new vehicle of $1,322.00. Don Dawson lost $101,004.00 on the sale of 179 new vehicles. Don Dawson was profitable in 1990 ($13,102.00; gross profit per new vehicle of $1,503.00 on 195 new vehicles) and the first eight months of 1991. During 1990, Don Dawson paid a total of $75,000.00 to $80,000.00 to its equity owners. Although the evidence supports a conclusion that it is possible that Don Dawson may suffer some loss in sales of Jeep trucks and/or Eagle automobiles, the weight of the evidence failed to prove what the total or general financial impact of the proposed new dealership might be on Don Dawson. Based upon the findings of fact, infra, concerning inadequate market penetration in the Milton sales locality, it is likely that the addition of the proposed new dealership will not negatively impact on Don Dawson's sales opportunities. Section 320.642(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes; Investment and Obligations of Existing Dealers. Don Dawson has a considerable investment in tools, parts and improvements to the property it leases from Chrysler. The evidence failed to prove that Don Dawson's investment is inadequate. Section 320.642(2)(b)3, Florida Statutes; Reasonably Expected Market Penetration for the Community or Territory. In analyzing the proper performance in a market, it is appropriate to compare the market share or market penetration of vehicle registrations within a target market with the share of vehicle registrations in an appropriate comparison market. It is appropriate to use a "segmented" approach in comparing markets. For example, in order to determine Jeep truck (or Eagle automobiles) market share, the total truck industry (or similar automobiles to those manufactured by Eagle) are compared. Jeep and Eagle market penetration in the nation as a whole and in Florida sales localities is represented by national averages and Florida sales locality averages. National markets and markets in the Florida sales localities include adequately and inadequately represented Jeep and Eagle represented markets. Therefore, these averages are very conservative. In light of the fact that the averages are the conservative it is reasonable to use the higher of the national or the Florida sales localities averages as a starting point. For Jeep, the higher standard is the national average penetration. For Eagle, the higher standard is the Florida sales localities average penetration. Florida penetration is based upon all of Florida except four small towns which are included in Alabama sales localities. It also includes one town in Alabama included in the Pensacola sales locality. After determining the national and Florida averages, it is appropriate to compare how other areas lived up to these standards. Of 68 sales localities in Florida, 32 performed above national averages for Jeep. Thirty of those that performed above national average and all that are above the Florida average (12 sales localities) have Jeep representation. A similar result is reached when Eagle penetration is reviewed. A consideration of demographics and lifestyle characteristics, based upon a comparison of the relative popularity of various vehicle types in the Milton sales locality, independent of brand type, compared to the relative popularity of the same vehicle types in Florida and nationally, confirms the reasonableness of the use of Florida and national average penetration rates as a standard. A reasonable market share expectation for Jeep for the Milton sales locality is 4.74%. A reasonable market share expectation for Eagle for the Milton sales locality is 0.95%. As is discussed, infra, Jeep-Eagle penetration in the Milton sales locality has been below these expected penetration rates indicating inadequate representation in the community or territory. The proposed new dealership location is part of a geographic area designated by Chrysler as the New Orleans Zone. This zone consists of part of the panhandle area of Florida (the northwest portion of Florida), Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Like Florida and the nation as a whole, there are areas within the New Orleans Zone that do not have Jeep-Eagle dealers. Unlike Florida, where there are only 38 sales localities and 20 markets without a Jeep-Eagle dealer, there are 111 sales localities and 47 markets in the New Orleans Zone where there is no Jeep-Eagle dealer. Each Jeep-Eagle dealership is in effect assigned a minimum sales responsibility review. This review is based upon a comparison of a dealer's sales with average sales in the zone the dealer is assigned to. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that dealers who meet their minimum sales responsibility are necessarily providing adequate representation. Although a comparison of sales performance of each dealer in the New Orleans Zone is made by Chrysler with the average performance within the zone as a whole, and the proposed new dealership location is within the New Orleans Zone, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the penetration rate in the New Orleans Zone is the appropriate standard for measurement of adequate representation. The New Orleans Zone is an area established for administrative convenience. The New Orleans Zone was not established for marketing comparisons. The evidence did not prove that, other than geographic proximity, the zone is comparable. Section 320.642(2)(b)4, Florida Statutes; Actions of the Licensee Denying Existing Dealers Opportunity for Reasonable Growth, Market Expansion or Relocation. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Chrysler has taken any action to deny Don Dawson or any other exiting dealer opportunity for reasonable growth, market expansion or relocation. The site that Don Dawson is located at is controlled by Chrysler. Don Dawson must negotiate a lease of its facilities from Chrysler and must get approval from Chrysler to add additional vehicle types. Don Dawson has had difficulty at times getting certain vehicle types from Chrysler. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that any of these facts constituted any action by Chrysler to prevent Don Dawson from growing or expanding its market, or that these facts relate to any request of Don Dawson to relocate. Section 320.642(2)(b)5, Florida Statutes; Attempts by the Licensee to Coerce Existing Dealers into Consenting. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this factor is relevant in this proceeding. Section 320.642(2)(b)6, Florida Statutes; Geographic Factors. It is approximately 17.5 miles from the proposed Milton Dodge dealership location and Don Dawson. It takes approximately 29 minutes to travel by automobile from Milton Dodge to Don Dawson. It takes approximately 51 minutes to drive the 40.4 miles from Milton Dodge to Lee Jeep Eagle in Fort Walton Beach. Jeep Eagle buyers in Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach must travel fairly extensive distances to comparison shop. Evidence concerning relevant geographic factors support approval of the new Milton Dodge dealership. Section 320.642(2)(c)7, Florida Statutes; Benefits to Consumers. Consumers in the Milton sales locality will benefit because they will not have to travel to Pensacola or Fort Walton Beach if they are interested in Jeep-Eagle vehicles. It will be easier for consumers in Pensacola to comparison shop. There will be some slight benefit to consumers in the Milton sales locality because Jeep trucks and Eagle automobiles will be more readily accessible to them if a new dealership is located in the proposed new location. The possible benefits to consumers supports approval of the proposed new dealership. Section 320.642(2)(b)8, Florida Statutes; Compliance with Dealer Agreements. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any existing dealers are not in full compliance with the dealer agreements with Chrysler. Section 320.642(2)(b)9, Florida Statutes; Adequate Inter- and Intra-Brand Competition. There is a lack of intra-brand competition in the Milton sales locality. This contributes to inadequate representation for Jeep-Eagle vehicles in the Milton sales locality. The negative impact of the lack of proximity of a Jeep-Eagle dealer to the Milton sales locality on representation is evidenced, in part, by a comparison of market penetration in Milton compared with market penetration in Pensacola, where a dealer is located. Existing Jeep-Eagle dealers are not providing adequate intra-brand competition in the Milton sales locality. Because of high population growth in Santa Rosa County and high inter- brand competition in the Milton sales locality, representation of Jeep-Eagle is inadequate based upon inter- and intra-brand competition. Adding a Jeep-Eagle dealership to the Milton sales locality is a reasonable solution to the inadequate representation in the Milton sales locality when the performance of similar line-makes with dealerships located in the Milton sales locality are compared to national and Florida average penetration rates. Line-makes not represented in the Milton sales locality have low penetration rates. Section 320.642(2)(b)10, Florida Statutes; Economic and Marketing Conditions. On a nationwide basis there have been significant declines of approximately 21% in the sales of Jeep trucks and Eagle automobiles between 1989 and 1990. Looking at the trend in sales of Jeep and Eagle vehicles over a longer period of time, however, indicates the very cyclical nature of vehicle sales. Although the current condition of vehicle sales and the economy as a whole gives reason to consider the new dealership with some skepticism, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the recent trend in the economy or vehicle sales should be determinative in this case. Pensacola, Milton and the surrounding areas have experienced a significant growth between 1980 and 1990. Santa Rosa County, where Milton is located, is projected through 1995 to experience substantial growth in total population, population 16 (the driving age) and over, and in household trends. Although much of the projected growth will occur along the Gulf of Mexico coast, as opposed to around Milton, Santa Rosa, including Milton, should continue to be an attractive area for vehicle sales. This finding is based upon the data concerning income of the population and the favorable economic conditions existing and forecasted for the area (see Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 73). Section 320.642(2)(b)11, Florida Statutes; Volume of Registrations By the Existing Dealer in the Community or Territory of the Proposed Dealer. The penetration by Jeep in the Milton sales locality during the period 1987-1990 was significantly less that the penetration which reasonably could be expected (see finding of fact 39) based upon national and Florida penetration rates. Although Eagle performed a little better in more recent years than Jeep, the penetration by Eagle during the period 1987-1990 was also significantly less that the penetration which reasonably could be expected based (see finding of fact 39) upon national and Florida penetration rates. Conclusion. Based upon a balanced consideration of the factors of Section 320.642(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the proposed new Jeep-Eagle dealership should be approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department enter a Final Order approving the application to establish a new Jeep-Eagle dealership on 800 West Highway 90, Milton, Santa Rosa County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 18th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Chrysler's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 2 and 6. 3 and 6. 3 3-5 and 7. Conclusions of law. See 19-21. Conclusions of law. Hereby accepted. 7 9-10. 8 12-13. 9 11 and 14. Cumulative. 16 and hereby accepted. 12-14 Cumulative. 15 24 and hereby accepted. 16-18 Hereby accepted. 19-22 Although these findings of fact are correct, it is unnecessary to consider the alternative community or territory of the Milton/Pensacola area identified by Chrysler. 23 See 18. Don Dawson did not have the burden of proof. 24 19. 25 See 47, 53-54 and 57. See 47. Hereby accepted. See 57. No a finding of fact. 30 32-33. 31 Don Dawson did not have the burden of proof. Don Dawson did provide some proof concerning this issue. 32 32-34. 33 35. 34 37. 35 37 and hereby accepted. 36-38 Subordinate facts. 39-41 See 38. 42 39. 43-44 Not necessary. See proposed findings of fact 19-22. 45-46 39 and hereby accepted. Not necessary. See proposed findings of fact 19-22. Subordinate fact. See 69. 50 69. 51-53 Cumulative facts. Not necessary. See proposed findings of fact 19-22. Cumulative facts. Not necessary. See proposed findings of fact 19-22. Hereby accepted. 58 See 41-44. 59 43-44. 60 41. 61 Hereby accepted. 62 See 41-44. 63-64 Hereby accepted. 65 See section K. 66 61. 67 Hereby accepted. 68 See 61, 66-67. 69 66-67. 70 67. 71-72 68 and hereby accepted. Cumulative facts. 66 and hereby accepted. 75-76 59 and hereby accepted. 77 58 and 60. 78-79 Too speculative. 80 48-49. 81 51. 82 61. See 58-62 and hereby accepted. See 59 and hereby accepted. 85 62. 86 Hereby accepted. 87 See 45-46. 88 22. 89 26. 90 See 28. 91 29. 92-93 Hereby accepted. Cumulative facts. See 35. 96 See 30-31. 97 Not relevant. Don Dawson's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 9. 2 11-12. 3 Hereby accepted. 4 17. 5* 24. 6* 48. 6* See 18. 5* 32. 6* 33 and hereby accepted. 7 40. See 42. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 42- 44. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Based on hearsay. Not relevant. See 42-44. Not relevant. 15 63. 16 Not relevant. At issue is the penetration rate in the Milton sales locality. 17 25-26. 18 27. 19 See 46. 20 23. 21 30. 22 Not relevant. Nor did the evidence prove why the offer was withdrawn. 23 2. 24-26 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 27 See 25-26. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. * These duplicative numbered findings of fact all appear on page 4 of Don Dawson's proposed recommended order.e COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire Cabaniss, Burke & Wagner, P.A. 851 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward H. Weeby, Esquire Office of General Counsel Chrysler Corporation 12000 Chrysler Drive Detroit, Michigan 48288 John L. Fiveash, Jr., Esquire Rhodes Building, Suite 106 41 North Jefferson Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-5643 Daniel E. Myers, Esquire Walter E. Forehand, Esquire Myers & Forehand 402 North Office Plaza Drive Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Alderman Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Room A432 Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came on for determination by the Department upon submission of an Order Closing File by Daniel M. Kilbride, an Administrative Law Judge, of the Division of Administrative Hearings, 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. ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Sunl Group, Inc. ‘and Action Motorsports to sell motorcycles manufactured by Astronautical Bashan Motorcycle Manufacture Co. Ltd. (BASH) at 11485 South Cleveland Avenue, Suite 1, Fort Myers (Lee County), Florida 33907. DONE AND ORDERED this a — day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 'ARL A. FORD, Direct6r Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division otor Vehicles this ZB day of July, 2009. 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. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Kyle Lee Ride Green, Inc. 5686 Youngquist Road #113 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Mei Zhou Sunl Group, Inc. ~ 8551 Ester Boulevard Irving, Texas 75063 Howard Chappell, Esquire Law Offices of Howard Chappell 1514 Cumberland Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ; Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Daniel M. Kilbride Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator - Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SUNL GROUP, INC., AND ACTION MOTORSPORTS, Petitioners, RIDE GREEN, INC., ) ) ) ) ) vs. ) Case No. 08-5720 ) ) ) Respondent. ) )
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by R. Bruce McK.ibben, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, 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. Said Order Closing file was predicated upon Respondent's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Dealer Agreement between Qlink, LP and Mega Power Sports, Corporation is terminated. DONE AND ORDERED this z/.ayofOctober, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed October 15, 2009 3:41 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this day of October, 2009. 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. CAF:vlg Copies furnished: Mark L. Ornstein, Esquire Killgore, Pearlman, Stamp, Ornstein & Squires, P.A. Post Office Box 1913 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Levison Mega Power Sports, Corp. 921 West International Speedway Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License .Section
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Stuart M. Lerner, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner's Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed December 3, 2010 4:44 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this ,,,11L day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. r Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divist Motor Vehicles .,,,, -- u -'" this day of December, 2010. N . DNlerl5cenMAdmlnlstralor 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 comt 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. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 A. Edward Quinton III, Esquire Adams, Quinton & Paretti, P. A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8th Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 Stuart M. Lerner Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Jessica E. Varn, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Withdrawal of Proposed Dealer Agreement from Consideration by Respondents and Motion to Dismiss as Moot, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this AY day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this 4 day of May, 2013. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com John W. Forehand, Esquire South Motors Automotive Group 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33157 john.forehand@southmotors.net David Seymour Leibowitz, Esquire Braman Management Association 2060 Biscayne Boulevard, 2"! Floor Miami, Florida 33137 davidl|@bramanmanagement.com Richard N. Sox, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 rsox@dealerlawyer.com Jessica E. Varn Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. SOUTH MOTOR COMPANY OF DADE COUNTY, d/b/a SOUTH MOTORS BMW, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., Respondent. a a aU OOOO ee Oe eee Case No. Case No. Case No. 12-3385 12-3386 12-3387 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3389 SARASOTA AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BMW OF SARASOTA BERT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC., d/b/a BERT SMITH INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC., d/b/a CAPITAL BMW IMPORT CITY, INC., d/b/a QUALITY BMW REEVES IMPORT MOTORCARS, INC., Respondents. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, _ Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3390 BRAMAN MOTORS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN BMW PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN MOTORCARS, Respondents. ORDER CLOSING FILES AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This case came before the undersigned on the Petitioner's Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Dealer Agreement from Consideration by Respondents and Motion to Dismiss as Moot, filed January 29, 2013, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. The final hearing scheduled for May 13 through 17, 2013, is canceled. 2. The files of the Division of Administrative Hearings are closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this llth day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. aw 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 11th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John W. Forehand, Esquire South Motors Automotive Group 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33157 john. forehand@southmotors.net Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough LLP Suite 202 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South Tallahassee, Florida 32312 dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com David Seymour Leibowitz, Esquire Braman Management Association 2nd Floor 2060 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 davidl@bramanmanagement.com Richard N. Sox, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 rsox@dealerlawyer.com STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, v8. Case No. 12-3385 SOUTH MOTOR COMPANY OF DADE COUNTY, d/b/a SOUTH MOTORS BMW, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3386 POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a Vista BMW of Pompano Beach, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. . Case No. 12-3387 POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a Vista BMW of Coconut Creek, Respondent. Filed January 29, 2013 8:53 AM Division of Administrative Hearings BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. SARASOTA AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BMW OF SARASOTA; BERT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC., d/b/a" BERT SMITH INTERNATIONAL; CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC., d/b/a CAPITAL BMW; IMPORT CITY, INC., d/b/a QUALITY BMW; and REEVES IMPORT MOTORCARS, INC., Respondents. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. BRAMAN MOTORS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN BMV, and PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN MOTORCARS, Respondents. Case No. 12-3389 Case No. 12-3390 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED DEALER AGREEMENT FROM CONSIDERATION BY RESPONDENTS AND MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Comes now BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") and notifies the Administrative Law Judge that it has withdrawn its notice to Respondents concerning the proposed dealer agreement which is the subject of this proceeding. withdrawal of notice, BMW NA moves to dismiss this matter as moot. motion, BMW NA states: As a result of this In support of its 1. On July 17, 2012, BMW NA notified Respondents of its intent to offer them the superseding/merged BMW Center Agreement for BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks ("the Merged Agreement"), which was proposed to supersede, modify and replace the existing BMW Dealer Agreement for BMW passenger cars and the existing BMW SAV Center Agreement for BMW light trucks (collectively "the Existing Agreements"). 2. Respondents filed complaints with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DHSMV"), contesting the terms of the proposed Merged Agreement. These complaints were transferred by the DHSMV to the Division of Administrative Hearings. 3. On January 29, 2013, BMW NA, by letters attached hereto as Exhibit A, notified Respondents, as follows: BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") hereby withdraws its notice, transmitted to you on July 17, 2012, with respect to the superseding/merged BMW Center Agreement (‘Agreement’) for BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks. You and your successors may remain on your current forms of: dealer agreements: the BMW Dealer Agreement for BMW passenger cars (‘Old Agreement’) and the BMW SAV Center Agreement for BMW light trucks (‘SAV Center Agreement') or sign the Agreement which was offered to you, at any time in the future. 4. Inasmuch as BMW NA has withdrawn the July 17, 2012 notice that entitled Respondents to file their protests, and confirmed to Respondents that they and their successors', have the option to remain on the Existing Agreements unless, at any time in the future, they elect to sign the Merged Agreement, Respondents’ protests should now be dismissed as moot. ' Motor vehicle dealerships, and equity interests therein, are transferable to buyers as provided in Section 320.643, Florida Statutes. 3 Respectfully submitted, Lh. bL Dean Bunch dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com C. Everett Boyd, Jr. everett. boyd@nelsonmullins.com Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Blvd., S., Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Telephone: (850)907-2505 Attorneys for BMW of North America, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing was served by electronic transmission, this at day of January, 2013, upon the following: | Jennifer Clerk, Agency Clerk clark. jennifer@hsmv.state.fl.us Dept. of Highway Safety Neil Kirkman Bldg., Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, FL 32399 John W. Forehand, Esq. john. forehand@southmotors.net 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, FL 33157 Richard N. Sox, Esq. rsox@dealerlawyer.com Nicholas A. Bader, Esq. nbader@dealerlawyer.com 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 David Leibowitz, Esq. davidl@bramanmanagement.com Timothy Grecsek, Esq. timothyg@bramanmanagement.com Braman Management Association 2060 Biscayne Bivd., Second Floor Miami, FL 33137 ~ Attorney
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of a Recommended Order of Dismissal by Daniel Manry, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner's request for withdrawal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to LS Motorsports, LLC and Larkin Motorworks, LLC d/b/a St. Pete Scooter to sell motorcycles manufactured by Zongshen Industrial Group (ZONG) at 3029 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street North, St. Petersburg (Pinellas County), Florida 33704. Filed October 23, 2009 9:50 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. I DONE AND ORDERED this Jl)/f.,.,,,day of October,, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RL A. FORD, Direc or Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divi otor Vehicles 3 this day of October, 2009. N airiN . o.i.r AdmlnilntOr 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. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Chris Densmore Scooter Escapes, LLC d/b/a Scooter Escapes 1450 1st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Ron Larkin Larkin Motorworks, LLC 3029 9th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Mathu Solo LS Motorsports, LLC 10215 South Sam Houston Parkway West, Suite 100 Houston, Texas 77071 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Manry Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the existing franchised Infiniti dealers who register new motor vehicle retail sales or leases are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make in the community or territory in which Respondent Nissan North American, Inc. ("Infiniti"), intends to establish Respondent M10 Motors, Inc., d/b/a Infiniti of Coral Gables, Inc. ("M10"), as a dealer for the sale and service of Infiniti vehicles, such that the license granting approval to establish M10 should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Parties, Notice, and Standing Respondent Infiniti is a distributor of Infiniti brand vehicles and products2/ and is a "licensee" as defined in section 320.60(8). Respondent M10 is the proposed Infiniti brand motor vehicle dealership whose establishment in Coral Gables, Florida, is at issue in this case. Petitioner South Motors is a "motor vehicle dealer"3/ as that term is defined in section 320.60(11)(a). South Motors is engaged in the business of selling Infiniti brand vehicles and products from its dealership facility located at 16195 South Dixie Highway, Palmetto Bay, Florida. On April 4, 2014, the DHSMV published two notices in the Florida Administrative Register, one announcing Infiniti's intent to allow the establishment of M10 as an Infiniti dealership with additional service facilities at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida ("14-2069 Notice"); and the other announcing Infiniti's intent to allow the establishment of M10 as a dealership for the sale and service of Infiniti vehicles at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida ("14-2070 Notice"). As more fully discussed below, the language of these notices makes abundantly clear that M10 is not seeking to establish an independent service-only dealership on Ponce de Leon Boulevard, but is instead proposing to establish a service location to be operated in conjunction with the sale and service intake facility to be located on Le Jeune Road.4/ South Motors is located within 12.5 miles of both the proposed M10 sales and service dealership location at 2701 Le Jeune Road and the proposed service location at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. The Existing Dealerships in Southeast Florida South Motors and Warren Henry Infiniti ("Warren Henry") currently are the only Infiniti dealers in Miami-Dade County. Warren Henry is located at 20850 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, in northeastern Miami-Dade County near the Broward County line. It opened in 1989 and has been in business at its current location for over 25 years. Warren Henry has not protested the proposed establishment of M10. South Motors5/ is located in Palmetto Bay, in southern Miami-Dade County. It opened shortly after Warren Henry, and has been in business at its current location for approximately 25 years. Warren Henry and South Motors are approximately 26 air miles and 28.5 drive miles apart. The area between Warren Henry and South Motors is urban, heavily populated, and characterized by heavy traffic congestion. Miami Gardens, North Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Miami, Coral Gables, Cutler Bay, and Kendall are among the communities located between Warren Henry and South Motors. There is no Infiniti dealership located between Warren Henry and South Motors. Recent data show that there are approximately 18,000 competitive luxury vehicle registrations6/ per year in the Coral Gables area. This is approximately three times the number of competitive registrations in the average primary market area ("PMA")7/ throughout the U.S., making the Coral Gables area one of the top three luxury vehicle markets in the United States. At approximately 10.6 air miles and 11.2 drive miles away, South Motors would be the closest existing Infiniti dealership to the proposed M10 dealership. At approximately 15.6 air miles and 17.3 drive miles away from the proposed M10 dealership, Warren Henry would be the next closest existing dealership to the M10 dealership. In March 2013, notice was published that Infiniti intended to relocate Warren Henry approximately five miles to the southeast of its current location, still within its own PMA. That proposed relocation has not been withdrawn, but as of the final hearing in this proceeding, Warren Henry had not secured a lease on the property at the site of the proposed relocation, and the status of its relocation remains uncertain.8/ There are three Infiniti dealerships in Broward County: Lauderdale Infiniti, Sawgrass Infiniti, and Infiniti of Coconut Creek. Lauderdale Infiniti and Sawgrass Infiniti are 10.7 air miles and 18.7 drive miles apart; Lauderdale Infiniti and Infiniti of Coconut Creek are 10.3 air miles and 13.3 drive miles apart; and Sawgrass Infiniti and Infiniti of Coconut Creek are 8.0 air miles and 10.5 drive miles apart. Lauderdale Infiniti is approximately 28.1 air miles and 31.5 drive miles from the proposed M10 dealership.9/ Sawgrass Infiniti is approximately 31.0 air miles and 38.6 drive miles from the proposed M10 dealership. Infiniti of Coconut Creek is approximately 36.6 air miles and 38.4 drive miles from the proposed M10 dealership. The Community or Territory Before determining whether the existing franchised Infiniti dealers are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make,10/ the pertinent community or territory ("comm/terr")——that is, the relevant geographic area for purposes of such determination——must be identified. The term "community or territory" is not defined in Florida Statutes, so the comm/terr particular to establishing the dealership at issue must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In determining the boundaries of the comm/terr, one factor considered is a dealer's area of responsibility designated in the manufacturer's franchise agreement. Specifically, Infiniti enters into a franchise agreement with each motor vehicle dealer of the Infiniti line- make. Pursuant to this agreement, which is titled the "Dealer Sales and Service Agreement" ("Dealer Agreement"), Infiniti designates a geographical area, the "PMA," for the particular dealer. Under the Dealer Agreement, the PMA is the "geographic area which is designated as the Dealer's sales and service responsibility for Infiniti Products in a Notice of Primary Market Area issued by the Seller [Infiniti] to the Dealer." A dealer's PMA is the area, consisting of census tracts, in which that dealer generally is physically closer to customers, so has a geographic advantage over other dealers for sales and service. Under the Dealer Agreement, the dealer is expected to actively and effectively promote, through its own advertising and sales promotion activities, the retail sale of Infiniti line-make vehicles to customers within its PMA. Infiniti uses the PMA as a tool to evaluate the dealer's performance of its sales obligations under the Dealer Agreement. Infiniti expects each dealer to provide adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make within its own PMA. The PMA is not an exclusive sales territory, and dealers are free to sell and service Infiniti products to customers anywhere in the U.S., including in other dealerships' PMAs. Here, Infiniti takes the position that the appropriate comm/terr consists of the so-called "Miami-Dade PMAs," which it collectively refers to as the "Miami-Dade Comm/Terr." The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr consists of the designated PMAs for South Motors Infiniti, Warren Henry Infiniti, and the proposed Coral Gables PMA11/ that will be established for M10. These three PMAs effectively cover the Miami-Dade County area.12/ In support of this position, Infiniti presented the testimony of its expert witness, Sharif Farhat, Vice President of Expert Services for Urban Science Applications, Inc. ("Urban Science"), an automotive industry performance and marketing consulting company. As part of his marketing and performance analysis regarding the Coral Gables open point, Farhat thoroughly researched the sales and customer shopping patterns in the Southeast Florida metropolitan area, which includes Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties. Based on his research and his experience with vehicle markets in the Southeast Florida area, Farhat opined that Miami- Dade County and Broward County constitute separate Infiniti sales markets and that, with only occasional exception, customers in each county shop for vehicles within their own county. Farhat's opinion was based on empirical data showing that South Motors made 96.4 percent of its sales within the Miami-Dade PMAs and Warren Henry made 83.5 percent of its sales within the Miami-Dade PMAs. Further, the data showed that the three Infiniti dealers in Broward County made significantly smaller percentages of their vehicle sales in Miami-Dade County than they did in Broward County. Specifically, Infiniti of Coconut Creek made 10.4 percent of its sales in the Miami-Dade PMAs, Sawgrass Infiniti made 29.5 percent of its sales in the Miami-Dade PMAs, and Lauderdale Infiniti made 33.7 percent of its sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Within the Coral Gables PMA, in-selling by the Infiniti dealers in Broward County amounted to less than 9 percent of each dealer's nationwide sales. The data also show that only very small percentages of customers within Broward County purchase Infiniti vehicles from the Miami-Dade County dealers. From this information, Farhat opined that there is little connectivity between Broward County and the Miami-Dade PMAs, and Broward County and Miami-Dade County comprise separate and distinct motor vehicle sales markets. This is because Broward County and Miami-Dade County are large, congested urban areas, with the dealerships in one county generally separated by considerable distance from those in the other county. Connectivity between customer base and the dealerships is a key factor in determining the comm/terr. Lack of connectivity indicates a separate market area and customer base. Here, Farhat's research showed a lack of connectivity between the customer base in Broward County and the dealerships in Miami-Dade County, due to the considerable drive distances and congested traffic conditions that exist between Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Under these circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect that customers in Broward County would travel substantial distances into Miami-Dade County for vehicle purchase and service, particularly when there are three Infiniti dealerships in Broward County. Likewise, it is not reasonable to expect customers in Miami-Dade County to travel north to Broward County for vehicle purchase and service. It also would be unreasonable for Infiniti to expect its dealers in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to adequately cover and represent the Infiniti brand throughout both counties. These conditions indicate that the Broward County dealerships and Miami-Dade County dealerships are in separate customer markets, and support the conclusion that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the appropriate comm/terr in this proceeding. South Motors takes the position that the applicable comm/terr is the so-called "Southeast Florida Metro" market, which consists of Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and a very small part of Palm Beach County. In support of this position, South Motors presented the testimony of Joseph Roesner, President of the Fontana Group, Inc., and an expert in local retail automobile industry and dealer performance analysis. In opining that the Southeast Florida Metro market is the appropriate comm/terr, Roesner relied heavily on provisions in the Infiniti dealer franchise agreement stating that when a dealer is located in a metropolitan area in which other authorized Infiniti dealers are located, combined and individual dealer sales performance may be evaluated based on and compared to the sales of Infiniti vehicles within the metropolitan area. He also relied on marketing studies performed by Urban Science for Infiniti in 2008 and 2013 addressing dealer performance focused on the Southeast Metro market. According to Roesner, these dealer agreement provisions and market studies indicate acknowledgement by Infiniti itself that the Southeast Florida Metro market is the appropriate comm/terr.13/ However, Roesner conceded that the dealer franchise agreement is not necessarily determinative of the applicable comm/terr, that the comm/terr is not the same in every case, and that buyer behavior and distance between the customer base and dealerships are relevant to determining the comm/terr. Roesner noted that there is some cross-selling between the Infiniti dealerships in Broward County and customers in Miami-Dade County. However, he recognized that there is significantly more cross-selling in the Miami-Dade County PMAs by South Motors and Warren Henry than by the Broward County dealerships. He acknowledged that this is due, at least in part, to the long distances between the Broward County dealers and the Miami-Dade PMAs. On these bases, Roesner acknowledged that there is merit to considering the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as an appropriate comm/terr in this proceeding. The persuasive evidence shows that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the appropriate comm/terr in this proceeding. Adequacy of Representation of the Infiniti Line-Make in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr As previously stated, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the existing franchised dealers who register new Infiniti motor vehicle retail sales or leases in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make within the Comm/Terr. The discussion below addresses the background pertinent to this determination and addresses the statutory factors in section 320.642(2)(b) with respect to this determination. Background Regarding South Motors, Coral Gables Open Point Designation, and Selection of M10 to Fill the Open Point South Motors' dealership is located on several parcels of land in Palmetto Bay.14/ Its main sales and service facility is located at 16591 South Dixie Highway, and it also has an off- site non-visit service facility about half a mile from its main facility, consisting of 16 service bays and 13 vehicle lifts, where heavy mechanical repairs are performed. Additionally, South Motors owns an off-site storage lot where it stores approximately 200 additional new inventory vehicles. South Motors has not experienced any operational difficulties or problems due to operating vehicle service and storage facilities offsite from its main dealership location on South Dixie Highway. Due to its age, South Motors' appearance is outdated and does not comply with the Infiniti Retail Environment Design Initiative ("IREDI") standards. IREDI is an Infiniti design program that sets standards for the appearance of Infiniti dealership facilities, and its purpose is to establish a consistent luxury image that promotes the Infiniti brand to luxury vehicle customers. Recently, South Motors committed to renovating its South Dixie Highway facility to meet the IREDI standards. To that end, Infiniti has committed, pursuant to an IREDI Dealer Participation Agreement, to provide $550,000 to South Motors to enable it to upgrade its dealership facility to IREDI standards. It is reasonable to anticipate that the upgrade of South Motors' facility to IREDI standards will enhance its competitive position in the luxury vehicle market. Even though South Motors is not compliant with IREDI standards, it nonetheless currently performs relatively well when compared to other Infiniti dealers in the southeastern U.S., with a sales effectiveness15/ of slightly over 100 percent. In large measure, South Motors' current satisfactory sales effectiveness level is due to the geographic extent of its PMA, which does not include the area comprised of the Coral Gables area where Infiniti has created the open point.16/ Between 2004 and 2008, South Motors' PMA did encompass a substantial amount of the area encompassed in the Coral Gables open point. During that time, South Motors performed very poorly, with a sales effectiveness of approximately 50 percent. This made South Motors the lowest performing dealership in the eastern U.S. and among the lowest performers in the entire country. At that time, South Motors asserted that its PMA was too large, that it could not adequately serve the Coral Gables area from its Palmetto Bay location, and that it was difficult for customers in Coral Gables to drive to the dealership to purchase vehicles or have them serviced. South Motors also asserted that it would be better positioned to cover the Coral Gables area if it were located further north. Based on a market study performed by Urban Sciences during this timeframe, Infiniti recommended that South Motors relocate approximately five miles north, to the Kendall area, in order to improve its business opportunities, particularly with respect to affording proximity to potential customers in the Coral Gables area.17/ Although South Motors searched for real estate in the Kendall area, it ultimately informed Infiniti that it could not locate any real estate that it considered suitable, and it did not relocate its dealership as recommended. South Motors' performance did not improve, falling to less than 50 percent sales effectiveness——last in the state and the region. In July 2007, Infiniti issued a Notice of Default, informing South Motors that it was in breach of the sales performance obligations under its Dealer Agreement, and giving South Motors a 180-day cure period. South Motors' performance still did not improve. In September 2008, over a year after issuing the Notice of Default, Infiniti sent South Motors a Notice of Termination, informing South Motors that Infiniti intended to terminate its relationship with South Motors due to continued unsatisfactory sales performance within its PMA. In response, South Motors filed a lawsuit against Infiniti, alleging that it was in substantial compliance with its Dealer Agreement and that Infiniti had, unilaterally and without notice, changed the Dealer Agreement by expanding its PMA, making it one of the largest in the nation. South Motors alleged, in part, that its sales effectiveness was adversely affected because the sales effectiveness determination took into account geographic areas in which it could not realistically be expected to compete. South Motors acknowledges that its own PMA previously encompassed a significant portion of the area now designated as the proposed Coral Gables PMA, and that it previously asserted that it was unable to effectively compete in that area. Around this time, Infiniti completed another market study to evaluate the brand's performance and representation in southeast Florida, including the area between Warren Henry and South Motors. Based on this study, Infiniti determined that the existing dealer network was not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti brand or its consumers in this area and decided to establish additional Infiniti representation, specifically in the Coral Gables area. In large measure, the lack of adequate representation is due to the distance and congested traffic conditions between Warren Henry and South Motors. Customers in the Coral Gables area must drive 30 to 45 minutes north or south to reach an Infiniti dealership for sales or service. This substantially decreases consumers' convenient access to the Infiniti brand, and, thus, substantially reduces the likelihood that consumers in the Coral Gables area will shop for or purchase an Infiniti vehicle instead of other competing line-makes. Infiniti also determined that the Coral Gables area presents a significant opportunity for additional sales and servicing of Infiniti vehicles. As previously noted, the data show that there are approximately 18,000 competitive luxury registrations per year in the Coral Gables area, making it one of the top three competitive luxury vehicle markets in the U.S. Other competitive luxury brands, such as Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volvo have established dealerships in the Coral Gables area. Having an Infiniti dealership in Coral Gables would afford Infiniti the opportunity to more effectively compete with these brands within this area, as well as attract luxury vehicle customers who may be cross-shopping at these dealerships. Accordingly, Infiniti declared an open point and designated the Coral Gables PMA, where it now proposes to establish M10. The Coral Gables PMA is substantially comprised of census tracts previously assigned to South Motors, and includes several densely-populated areas, including downtown Miami and the City of Coral Gables. As a result of this carve-out from its PMA, South Motors' PMA was substantially reduced in size, which had the immediate effect of doubling South Motors' sales effectiveness from 50 percent to over 100 percent. This increase was due to removing South Motors' contractual responsibility for representing the Infiniti brand within the census tracts in the Coral Gables area, not because South Motors was selling more vehicles. This significant change in South Motors' sales effectiveness shows that the Coral Gables PMA contains a large number of competitive luxury registrations,18/ and it further evidences that South Motors was not adequately covering the Coral Gables market. Due to the dramatic improvement in South Motors' sales effectiveness, Infiniti rescinded its Notice of Termination. Although South Motors no longer is contractually responsible under the Dealer Agreement for selling vehicles within the area that includes the proposed Coral Gables PMA, and even though South Motors' sales effectiveness immediately and substantially increased due to this area having been carved out of its PMA, South Motors takes the position that the Coral Gables area should not be designated as an open point or assigned to any dealer, but instead should remain "unassigned." This means that this area would not be assigned to any dealer for purposes of that dealer being contractually responsible for selling vehicles within the area. The effect of keeping the Coral Gables census tracts unassigned is that no dealership would be contractually motivated or compelled to maximize sales within these areas, but any dealer could, in effect, "harvest the low hanging fruit" by selling some vehicles to customers within this heavily populated area. Infiniti's Vice President for its East Region, Jeffrey Harris, testified that the opportunity for Infiniti to compete for luxury vehicle sales in the Coral Gables area was far too significant for Infiniti to allow this area to remain unassigned. When Infiniti established the Coral Gables open point, Harris recommended that Infiniti offer the open point to South Motors to give it the opportunity to adequately serve the Coral Gables PMA. This would entail South Motors establishing a dealership within the Coral Gables PMA. South Motors confirmed its interest in filling the Coral Gables open point. In December 2010, Infiniti sent a letter to South Motors confirming that South Motors had been conditionally approved as the dealer candidate for the Coral Gables PMA, stating that South Motors was the exclusive appointee for the proposed dealership for 90 days, and informing South Motors that it needed to provide Infiniti a formal proposal and timeline for the proposed dealership. Shortly before its presumptive appointment expired, South Motors notified Infiniti that it had made substantial progress on a proposal for the dealership, and that it had reviewed and evaluated numerous properties in the Coral Gables area. On this basis, Infiniti extended the time period over which South Motors' would remain the presumptive appointee for the Coral Gables dealership. In July 2011, South Motors and Infiniti met to discuss South Motors' progress toward making a formal proposal for the Coral Gables open point. This meeting was held at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, a former Lincoln-Mercury dealership.19/ South Motors focused on purchasing this site in combination with several nearby properties at a cost of approximately $22.9 million. Infiniti suggested that South Motors may consider reducing this cost by only acquiring the property absolutely necessary to operate the dealership. Over the ensuing months, South Motors repeatedly requested Infiniti's financial assistance for property acquisition, dealership construction, and potential legal costs that may be incurred in defending against protests to the proposed dealership. Infiniti responded that it likely was willing to provide approximately $3 to $5 million in assistance, but that South Motors needed to execute a confidentiality agreement and provide a formal written proposal for the dealership so that Infiniti could evaluate the proposed investment to determine the level of financial support necessary and appropriate based on the specific proposal. South Motors did not sign a form confidentiality agreement. It also did not sign a revised form Infiniti provided that included language stating that South Motors' discussions regarding the proposed Coral Gables dealership could not be disclosed in any litigation, including in any protest to the addition of a dealership in Coral Gables.20/ South Motors did not submit a formal proposal to establish a dealership in the Coral Gables open point because it ultimately determined that such a proposal was not financially feasible for its dealership. Approximately one year after first advising South Motors that it was the preferred dealership candidate for the Coral Gables open point, Infiniti determined that South Motors and Infiniti had reached an impasse. At that point, Infiniti began considering proposals from other interested dealership candidates; nonetheless, South Motors remained the preferred candidate and was free to submit a formal proposal that would be considered along with those submitted by other candidates. South Motors did not submit a formal proposal for the Coral Gables dealership. Infiniti received multiple proposals for the Coral Gables open point and initially selected a professional athlete very well-known in the Coral Gables community to open the dealership. When that candidate was unable to proceed, Infiniti selected Bernardo Moreno as its candidate for the Coral Gables dealership. Moreno has personal and family ties to South Florida. He owns the Collection Auto Group, a group of motor vehicle dealerships located primarily in the northeast and northern U.S. He earned a degree in business administration with a marketing concentration and has worked his entire career in the automobile industry. Over the course of his career, Moreno has acquired and operated automotive and luxury motor vehicle dealerships for a range of line-makes, including Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, Maserati, Aston-Martin, Acura, Buick/GMC, Nissan, Volkswagen, Saab, and Infiniti. Moreno's dealership group has been very profitable and makes hundreds of millions of dollars in sales revenue per year. When Moreno was selected as the dealer for the Coral Gables open point, he and Infiniti were aware of the cost of property in downtown Coral Gables and the potential for a challenge from South Motors. Thus, Moreno requested financial assistance from Infiniti. Moreno and Infiniti entered into a Framework Agreement that contained a confidentiality provision and a schedule for the provision of financial assistance by Infiniti. Pursuant to this schedule, Infiniti committed to provide M10 financial support up to a potential total of $4.4 million, starting with an initial disbursement of $200,000 in September 2014, and periodic payments of up to $120,000 each for the next seven years. These payments were intended to help M10 offset the cost of this proceeding and any appeals, the cost of rent during the pendency of this proceeding and any appeals, and dealership startup costs. The periodic payments to M10 after the dealership opens are not guaranteed, and are contingent on the dealership meeting certain sales, service, and customer satisfaction benchmarks. Under the Framework Agreement, Infiniti also committed to provide M10 a one-time payment of $1 million to assist with the expense of remodeling M10's sales and service intake facility, which will be located at 2701 Le Jeune Road, in the Bacardi Building, an existing office building in Coral Gables. M10 has entered into a long-term lease for its sales and service intake space at the Bacardi Building. M10's sales and service intake facility on Le Jeune Road will be its only contact point with its customers. Due to the high cost and limited availability of property in Coral Gables, this sales and service intake facility will not be a typical suburban-style dealership, but instead will be similar to other luxury vehicle dealerships in Coral Gables such as the Mercedes-Benz dealership next door, and to dealerships in other downtown urban areas, such as in Manhattan, New York. The cost of remodeling the space in the Bacardi Building to suitability for M10's sales and service intake facility will approach that of constructing a new dealership building. M10's sales and service intake facility will consist of the dealership's sales and service reception areas, vehicle showroom, and a range of amenities designed to appeal to luxury vehicle customers. Although the facility will have a service intake and reception area where service customers will drop off and pick up their vehicles, it will not have service bays for the performance of vehicle service onsite. As its offsite service location, M10 has secured a site approximately 0.8 miles away, at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, a former Lincoln-Mercury dealership. This is the same location that South Motors considered as its potential dealership site, had it proceeded to fill the Coral Gables open point. However, rather than purchasing this property as South Motors proposed to do when exploring a Coral Gables dealership, M10 has instead entered into a long-term lease of the site. The Ponce de Leon service location will have 12 to 15 service bays for vehicle service and repair. There will be no Infiniti signage at this location and M10's customers will not visit this location. Customers will drop off and pick up their vehicles at the sales and service intake location at the Bacardi Building and porters will drive the vehicles to and from the Ponce de Leon location for service. It is not uncommon for dealerships in urban markets to have offsite service locations; indeed, South Motors itself has an offsite service location where it performs vehicle repair. M10 currently is paying $71,414 per month for the Bacardi Building and $44,000 per month for the Lincoln-Mercury facility. M10 also plans to lease an offsite vehicle storage lot. Statutory Factors Regarding Adequacy of Representation Impact of the Proposed M10 Dealership on Consumers, Public Interest, Existing Dealers, and Infiniti Impact on Consumers and the Public Interest As discussed above, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently is served by two Infiniti dealers, South Motors and Warren Henry, which are located approximately 26 air miles and 28.5 drive miles apart. The area between Warren Henry and South Motors is urban, heavily populated, and characterized by significant traffic congestion. As previously noted, Miami Gardens, North Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Miami, Coral Gables, Hialeah, Cutler Bay, and Kendall are among the communities located in the area between Warren Henry and South Motors. There is no Infiniti dealership located between Warren Henry and South Motors. Also as discussed above, the sales and service intake location for M10 is proposed to be located at 2701 Le Jeune Road, in Coral Gables, and the service facility will be located approximately 0.8 miles away. At this location, M10 would be located approximately 10.6 air miles and 11.2 drive miles from South Motors, and 15.6 air miles and 17.2 drive miles from Warren Henry. Thus, rather than customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr driving an average of over 13 miles in congested traffic conditions to reach an Infiniti dealership, the average drive distance would be reduced to an average of approximately seven miles. This would increase convenient access to Infiniti sales and service within the Comm/Terr, and would particularly benefit service customers, who are less likely to travel significant distances for service or parts as compared to customers seeking to purchase a vehicle. The proposed dealership would have extended service hours and would be open for service seven days a week. Its service department would be open overnight, which would allow customers to drop their vehicle off for service, receive a loaner vehicle, and pick up their fully-serviced vehicle the following morning. South Motors claims that the new dealership would not have sufficient parking or onsite inventory storage, so would not enhance customer convenience. Pursuant to lease agreements, M10 has secured 124 parking spaces onsite at the Bacardi Building for the dealership, and pursuant to lease terms, has an option to negotiate the lease of additional spaces within the Bacardi Building. Additionally, if the dealership is approved, M10 intends to secure an offsite storage lot where it can maintain additional inventory, albeit, it is possible that the lot may be some distance from the dealership. Infiniti and M10 acknowledge that it would be preferable for the dealership to have more onsite parking spaces, but it is common for dealerships in downtown areas to have limited onsite parking with additional offsite inventory storage capacity. The evidence establishes that M10 will take the necessary business and operational steps to secure additional parking so that the dealership can operate smoothly, and has plans in place to do so if the dealership is approved. The evidence does not show that the purported shortage of onsite parking spaces significantly detracts from the substantial convenience to customers of having another Infiniti dealership within the Comm/Terr——particularly at a location that will obviate the need to travel an average of 13 miles under heavily congested conditions for Infiniti sales and service. The new dealership also would benefit the public. M10 anticipates hiring approximately 80 full-time and 15 part-time employees, thus increasing employment in the Coral Gables area. M10 would occupy and substantially renovate two facilities that currently are vacant, increasing local tax revenue and improving the community character in the vicinity of the dealership. South Motors asserts, based on an analysis of M10's pro forma, that given the high cost of real estate in Coral Gables, it is unlikely that M10 will be able to operate profitably,21/ and that adding M10 will result in the two existing profitable dealerships also becoming unprofitable. Thus, South Motors reasons, consumers, the existing dealers, and Infiniti all will be negatively affected by the establishment of M10. South Motors' analysis, which projected a loss of between $25,000 and $168,000 in M10's first year of operation, was based on a projection of sales only in the Miami/Dade Comm Terr, not on projected nationwide sales. Further, it assumes a substantially lower profit per vehicle sale than South Motors currently makes, and assumes an owner's salary of $390,000. However, many operating variables, including owner's salary, can be adjusted to enable M10 to operate profitably its first year and still pay an owner's salary of $220,000. Additionally, M10 would be part of Mr. Moreno's highly profitable dealership group, which earns approximately $15 million per year in profit and makes hundreds of millions of dollars in sales revenue each year. Given Mr. Moreno's history of operating successful, profitable dealerships in highly competitive markets for a number of years, it is reasonable to infer that M10 also will operate as a profitable dealership. Impact on Intrabrand and Interbrand Competition The new dealership would enhance intrabrand competition by providing customers an additional competitive option for Infiniti sales and service within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. It also would enhance interbrand competition by adding an Infiniti dealership at a Coral Gables location where many of Infiniti's line-make and model competitors, such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Lexus, Audi, and Volvo, currently operate dealerships in close proximity. The new dealership would add Infiniti as a competitive choice in this area and would provide customers the opportunity to cross-shop Infiniti with these competing brands. Impact on Existing Dealers, Including Financial Impact to South Motors, and on Infiniti In determining the impact of the proposed new dealership on existing dealerships in the comm/terr, a key inquiry is the amount of opportunity that exists for the new dealership to capture sales and service without materially affecting the existing Infiniti dealers. As previously noted, the Coral Gables area is one of the top three luxury vehicle markets in the U.S. The 18,000 competitive luxury registrations per year in this area is three times the number of competitive registrations in the average Infiniti PMA in the U.S. One source of opportunity exists in the shortfall in expected Infiniti sales as compared to other competitive line- make sales within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. As discussed in greater detail below, in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, Infiniti's recent sales performance22/ is at approximately 65 percent of average and in the Coral Gables PMA that number drops to approximately 56 percent of average. If Infiniti's sales performance was raised to average through gaining sales that currently are lost to interbrand competition, this would translate into approximately 1,069 sales of Infiniti vehicles that could be captured by another dealer.23/ Capturing sales lost to Infiniti dealers outside the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr represents another source of business opportunity. These in-sells into the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently are made by more distant and less convenient Infiniti dealerships, and likely could be captured with increased marketing, inventory selection, and competition in the Comm/Terr. In 2013, Infiniti dealers outside the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr made 651 sales into the Comm/Terr. When these in- sells are added to the 1,069 sales that would be added through successful interbrand competition if Infiniti's performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr was raised to average, this yields an additional 1,720 sales of Infiniti vehicles available to another Infiniti dealer. To that point, the persuasive evidence shows that had M10 been in business in 2013 and had performed at an average level, it would have made 1,283 sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr alone.24/ This estimate does not take into account sales made outside the Comm/Terr.25/ This evidences that the market in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables PMA, can support another Infiniti dealer without significant negative impact on the existing dealers in the Comm/Terr. Proximity is an important factor in a customer's choice of dealership.26/ South Motors derives over 40 percent of its sales from the area included in the Coral Gables PMA. In part, that is due to South Motors' location in southern Miami-Dade County, with the Atlantic Ocean in relatively close proximity to the east and the Everglades in relatively close proximity to the west. The population center in this part of Miami-Dade County is largely north of South Motors, with a particularly large concentration in the Coral Gables area. Historically, approximately half of South Motors' sales and service business has been derived from customers who reside closer to the location of the proposed new dealership than to South Motors. Based on a proximity analysis performed by its expert, Joseph Roesner, South Motors takes the position that its historic proximity advantage for sales and service necessarily dictates that its future performance will suffer with the addition of the new dealership. Essentially, South Motors asserts that if the new dealership is approved, it will lose its proximity advantage for a substantial portion of its customers, and that as a result, it stands to lose between 20 percent and 40 percent of its business.27/ However, this position erroneously assumes that the number of new vehicle sales is a "fixed pie" and fails to take into account the amount of business opportunity available in the market that currently is not being captured. Mr. Roesner acknowledged that South Motors currently is capturing only 50 percent of the sales available in the Coral Gables area.28/ If capture rate is increased, new vehicle sales would increase, indicating that the "pie" of new vehicle sales business is not fixed. South Motors historically has made over $1 million in annual net profit. Roesner estimated, based on his projected 20 to 40 percent decline in business, that South Motors stands to lose between $1 million and $2 million per year in business and may become unprofitable if the new dealership is approved. Roesner arrived at his estimated 20 to 40 percent decline in South Motors' business based on an analysis of other instances in Florida involving the addition of an Infiniti dealership to an existing dealership network since 2009. He assumed that the existing dealership would capture the same percentage of existing sales after the new dealership is added as it did before the new dealer is added. He then compared the amount of sales the existing dealership made to expected sales before and after addition of the new dealership. Pursuant to this methodology, Roesner determined that the new dealership increased Infiniti's sales in the luxury vehicle market but that some of the new dealership's sales came at the expense of the existing dealerships, and that in each case, the addition of a new dealership reduced the existing dealerships' sales between 7.53 percent and 22.3 percent. Applying this methodology to South Motors, he projected a 23.42 percent decline in sales as a result of adding M10. However, South Motors' projection is based on the flawed assumption, discussed above, that existing dealerships maintain the exact same level of sales performance after the addition of a new dealership as before the addition of that dealership. Roesner acknowledged that a dealership's sales effectiveness can change from year to year, and he did not evaluate how the existing dealerships' sales performance had been trending in prior years. The persuasive evidence showed that in each instance where an existing dealership's sales performance declined after a new dealer was added, the existing dealership's performance already was trending downward due to other factors in the market, before the new dealership was added. Thus, it was erroneous to assume that the decrease in existing dealerships' sales performance projected by South Motors was caused solely by the addition of a new dealership. The persuasive evidence shows that the addition of a new dealership causes, at most, a relatively small decline in existing dealerships' sales performance, and that adding an Infiniti dealership increases brand awareness and performance, even in markets where the Infiniti already performs above average. Again, this evidences that new vehicle sales are not a "fixed pie" in terms of amount available in the market. Thus, South Motors' projection that it stands to lose 20 to 40 percent across all aspects of its business is based on flawed assumptions. In fact, South Motors itself projected a potential 23.42 percent loss in new sales based on these flawed assumptions, and it did not persuasively establish that it will suffer a significant impact to its service or wholesale parts business. Losses to used vehicle or customer pay service that South Motors posits it will experience are not statutorily cognizable in this proceeding, so are not properly counted toward South Motors' asserted loss. Thus, South Motors' projection, based on erroneous assumptions, that it stands to lose $1 million to $2 million in business and likely become unprofitable as a result of the establishment of M10, is not reliable or persuasive. South Motors is part of a large, successful vehicle dealership group in south Florida that has a net working capital and net cash worth of over $8 million, sells approximately 20,000 vehicles, generates nearly a billion dollars in gross revenue per year, and earns between $800,000 and $1.5 million in profit per year. South Motors' Executive Vice President, Jonathan Chariff, testified that South Motors is in a very sound and financially stable position. In sum, the persuasive evidence establishes that because there is sufficient business opportunity in the Miami- Dade PMA, establishment of the new Infiniti dealership is not likely to have a significant negative impact on the existing Miami-Dade Infiniti dealers, including South Motors. The persuasive evidence also shows, based on an analysis of all instances in Florida since 2009 in which a new dealership was added to an existing dealer network, that the new dealership is likely to stimulate the market and result in additional sales for the Infiniti line-make, with relatively little to no negative impact to the existing dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. 2. Reasonably Expected Market Penetration in the Comm/Terr Market penetration is a measure of the share of the retail motor vehicle market that a particular line-make achieves during a defined period of time in a particular geographic area. Establishing an Appropriate Benchmark To determine if the Infiniti brand is adequately performing with respect to sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, a standard for measuring the brand's representation within that area must be identified. This entails identifying an appropriate geographic area in which to assess brand performance for purposes of comparison to Infiniti's performance in the Comm/Terr. Here, Infiniti posits that the appropriate geographic area consists of Florida areas that currently are represented by an Infiniti dealer. This geographic area is proposed because when determining whether the Infiniti brand is adequately represented in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, the brand's sales performance should be compared to other areas where Infiniti is actually represented by a dealer.29/ The performance benchmark derived from this geographic area is the "Florida Represented Standard," which is the average performance of the Infiniti brand in the PMAs currently being represented by a dealer in Florida, minus the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr.30/ The Florida Represented Standard benchmark is a local standard that more precisely reflects Infiniti's level of brand representation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr than do other broader benchmarks, such as average Infiniti brand performance for the eastern U.S. or the entire country.31/ South Motors' expert, Mr. Roesner, examined more than one benchmark for purposes of determining Infiniti sales performance, specifically, the Florida Represented Standard; all of Florida, including unassigned areas, minus the Southeast Florida Metro market (which consists of Miami-Dade and Broward counties and a small portion of Palm Beach County); and the Florida Represented Standard minus the Southeast Florida Metro market. As discussed above, it has been determined that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the appropriate comm/terr for this proceeding. Thus, the benchmark for determining average brand performance must be selected to enable a comparison to the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Of the comparison areas proposed in this proceeding, only the Florida Represented Standard meets that requirement. Thus, it is determined that the Florida Represented Standard is the appropriate benchmark in this proceeding for determining Infiniti's brand performance. Segmentation Analysis Once the performance benchmark has been determined, a segmentation analysis is performed to account for any differences in consumer and product preferences between the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and the comparison area——here, the area comprising the Florida Represented Standard. Infiniti's product lines are broken down into various vehicle types, or segments, on the basis of size, functionality, price point, and "second choice" data. Segmentation analysis evaluates the specific types of vehicles being purchased by consumers in a particular area and accounts for all consumer and product variables in the market, so that no other adjustments to account for demographic characteristics such as ethnicity, income, or education are necessary. Thus, segmentation analysis eliminates the need to speculate regarding consumer preferences across vehicle types based on the range of demographic factors, including ethnicity. Infiniti has identified seven different "segments," or vehicle types, within its brand for purposes of analyzing brand performance. These segments are: Luxury Coupe, Mid Luxury, Near Luxury, Luxury Compact SUV, Luxury Midsize SUV, Luxury Fullsize SUV, and Luxury Large SUV. Infiniti also has identified the specific Infiniti models within each segment, as well as the specific models of other line-makes that compete with the Infiniti models within each segment. The penetration rate in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr for Infiniti for a particular segment is determined by dividing the number of Infiniti registrations for that segment by the total number of competitive registrations for that segment. The expected penetration rate for a particular segment of the Infiniti brand is determined by comparing the total number of competitive registrations for that segment to the Florida Represented Standard. This expected penetration rate per segment can then be compared to the actual sales of Infiniti vehicles for that segment. Based on the Florida Represented Standard, for the year 2012-2013, the expected penetration rate for Infiniti vehicles across all segments is 8.42 percent. During this period, Infiniti achieved an actual penetration rate of 6.51 percent across all vehicle segments in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, showing a shortfall between expected and actual sales of Infiniti vehicles in the Comm/Terr. Registration effectiveness, which compares actual brand penetration to expected brand penetration,32/ is the calculated measure that is used to gauge brand performance. Here, comparing the expected 8.42 percent Infiniti penetration rate to the actual 6.51 percent Infiniti penetration rate yields a registration effectiveness for the Infiniti brand of 77.3 percent for the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr for 2013. Confirmation of the Benchmark as Reasonable Once the benchmark has been selected and adjusted using segmentation analysis, it must be evaluated by determining if it is achievable and has been achieved in the Florida Represented Standard area. Here, the persuasive evidence consistently showed, across a range of represented PMAs in Florida, that with little exception, the dealers are meeting the benchmark of 100 percent registration effectiveness, which is average performance. This confirms that the Florida Represented Standard is a reasonable benchmark to use in evaluating Infiniti's brand sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Measuring Infiniti's Brand Performance in the Comm/Terr The persuasive evidence shows that in comparison to the Florida Represented Standard benchmark, the Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is below average. Between 2011 and 2013, Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr ranged between 77 and 80 percent of average. However, by March 2014, its performance had fallen to approximately 65 percent of average. In 2013, the existing Infiniti dealer network in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr made 737 fewer vehicle sales than expected and it was projected to make 1,284 fewer vehicle sales than expected through 2014. This shows that customers are purchasing Infiniti vehicles in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr at significantly lower levels than in the rest of the represented markets in Florida. This indicates that the Infiniti brand is not being adequately represented by the existing dealer network in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. This inadequacy is even more pronounced when Infiniti's sales performance is evaluated in the area encompassed within the Coral Gables PMA. Between 2011 and March 2014, Infiniti's sales performance fell from 67.9 percent of average to 56.1 percent of average. In 2013, the existing dealer network made 543 fewer Infiniti sales than expected within the area in the Coral Gables PMA, and it was on pace to make 720 fewer sales than expected in 2014——making it the worst-performing PMA in Florida. In 2011, South Motors accounted for 30.1 percent of the brand's registration effectiveness within the Coral Gables PMA, and other dealers accounted for 37.8 percent. In 2012, those numbers were 31.1 percent and 34.4 percent, respectively; in 2013, those numbers were 25.0 percent and 38.0 percent, respectively; and as of March 2014, those numbers were 27.1 percent and 29.0 percent, respectively. This information shows that the existing Infiniti dealer network is not providing adequate representation or sufficiently cultivating existing sales potential in the area encompassed within the Coral Gables PMA. South Motors' expert, Mr. Roesner, evaluated Infiniti's brand performance within the Southeast Florida Metro area, but did not specifically evaluate Infiniti brand performance within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr or the Coral Gables PMA. Based on his analysis of Infiniti's sales performance in the Southeast Florida Metro market, Roesner found that the Infiniti brand was performing between approximately 85 percent and 90 percent of average in that area. He described this performance as "a reasonable level. It's not a superior performance, but neither is it inadequate." Because Roesner's analysis was keyed to the Southeast Florida Metro market, it necessarily included Infiniti's performance in Broward County north of Warren Henry. In Broward County, the Infiniti brand is represented by three dealerships located in close proximity to each other, and the brand performs relatively well. By contrast, there are only two Infiniti dealerships in Miami-Dade County, separated by 26 miles of urban development and congested traffic conditions. By including Broward County, Roesner's analysis shows Infiniti performing at a significantly higher level than in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr or Coral Gables PMA. The inclusion of Broward County in Infiniti's sales performance analysis positively skews the performance numbers, but does not accurately portray the brand's sales performance specifically in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, which is the geographic area relevant to this proceeding.33/ Roesner acknowledged that there is little interaction between the Broward County dealerships and customers in the Coral Gables area, with each Broward County dealership making less than nine percent of its nationwide sales within the Coral Gables area. He further acknowledged that this is due, at least in part, to the significant drive distances between those dealerships and the Coral Gables area. Roesner posited that because existing dealers are making some sales into the Coral Gables PMA, it is being "cultivated." However, he acknowledged that this did not necessarily mean that this area was being adequately represented by the existing dealers. He further acknowledged that Infiniti's brand performance in the Coral Gables PMA is worst in the state and that there is opportunity for additional sales within that area. In sum, the persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Infiniti brand is not being adequately represented for new vehicle sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and that the brand performs particularly poorly in the Coral Gables PMA. Infiniti's service performance also was analyzed to determine if it is being adequately represented within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and in the Coral Gables PMA. First, the number of Infiniti Units in Operation ("UIO") within the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr and Coral Gables PMA was determined. This number is a measure of service opportunity for Infiniti in this geographic area. Infiniti uses a seven-year UIO measurement, which reflects the number of Infiniti vehicles within the most recent seven model years. Once the amount of UIO was determined, this number was then compared to Infiniti repair orders for warranty service, extended service contracts, goodwill repairs, and service campaign repairs.34/ This enabled determination of the "capture rate" or percentage of UIO that were matched to a qualifying repair order. Because Infiniti's initial warranty covers four years, this analysis is not limited to warranty repair and includes all types of repair work for which Infiniti reimburses the dealer to perform. This analysis showed that South Motors is capturing 67.2 percent of the UIO in its PMA. However, its UIO capture in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole and in the Coral Gables PMA were substantially lower, at 46.8 percent and 46.7 percent, respectively. The significant difference between Infiniti's service performance within South Motors' PMA compared to the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole and to the Coral Gables PMA demonstrates that the existing dealer network is not providing adequate representation for service within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and the Coral Gables PMA. Factors Affecting Infiniti's Market Penetration in the Comm/Terr The statutory "market penetration" factor requires, in addition to an analysis of how existing dealers are penetrating the market, "consideration of all factors which may affect said penetration, including but not limited to, demographic factors such as age, income, education, size class preference, product popularity, retail lease transactions, or other factors affecting sales to consumers in the community or territory." § 320.642(2)(b)3., Fla. Stat. The factors germane to this proceeding are addressed below. Population and household trends in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr are indicators of market opportunity. The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is a very densely populated area that has over three million people and one million households, so presents a substantial market opportunity. With approximately 1.2 million people and growing, the Coral Gables area is a particularly densely populated, heavily congested area within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. This means that consumers in this area seeking access to an Infiniti dealership have to work their way through heavy traffic to access a dealer located substantially to the north or south. These population and household numbers are expected to increase in the future, increasing both the demand for vehicles sales and service and the congestion that must be negotiated to obtain access to an Infiniti dealer in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. These factors indicate that Infiniti's underperformance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is due to an inadequate number of Infiniti dealers, and that this performance shortfall will become more pronounced in the future under the existing dealer network. Household income and employment are indicators of consumers who are in the market to purchase a vehicle. Employment in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr has been growing since reaching a low point in 2009, indicating good economic conditions for the vehicle retail business. There are over 380,000 households with an annual income of between $50,000 and $150,000, and an additional 75,000 households having an annual income of over $150,000. These conditions indicate a significant number of households in this area that are in the target range for the Infiniti brand. A statistical regression analysis was performed to determine whether Infiniti brand performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr may be significantly related to the high Hispanic population in the area. This analysis identified several areas in Florida having a high Hispanic population where the brand is performing well, indicating no significant relationship between the percentage of Hispanic population and Infiniti's brand performance. Thus, this factor is not adversely affecting the brand's performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. The competitive registration patterns in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr show a significant concentration of consumers who are purchasing vehicles of competitive line-makes and models in Coral Gables, in and around the location of the proposed M10 dealership. In fact, many dealers who sell vehicles that compete with Infiniti have dealerships close to this location. This indicates that dealership convenience and accessibility are important to customers in this area, and that the lack of an Infiniti dealership in this area indicates a lack of convenience and accessibility for customers of the Infiniti brand. This area has experienced steady growth in competitive registrations over the past few years and that trend is anticipated to continue into the future. This shows that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and the Coral Gables PMA present a consistent and growing opportunity for Infiniti sales, and that the current shortfall in Infiniti sales is not due to lack of sales opportunity in these areas. The evidence shows that the sales opportunity for Infiniti dealers within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the largest per dealer of any market in Florida, and that even if a third dealer were added in the Coral Gables area, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr still would have the largest sales opportunity per dealer in the state. This indicates that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is too large a market to be adequately served by the two existing Infiniti dealers. The evidence similarly shows that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr also has the largest service opportunity (in terms of UIO) per dealership of any market in Florida——again, suggesting that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is too large a service market for the two existing dealers to adequately serve. Addition of a third dealership in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr would slightly reduce the UIO per dealership, but the Comm/Terr still would constitute the third largest service market in Florida. The reduction in UIO per dealership is related to the number of units (vehicles) in operation in the area and Infiniti's sales performance in the area. Because the Infiniti brand's sales performance has fallen below the expected level in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, there are fewer units in operation than if the brand performed at expected levels for sales performance. With higher sales performance, the number of units in operation in this market——and, thus, service opportunity——would increase due to the additional vehicle sales being made into the market. Thus, as the Infiniti brand experiences better sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, service opportunity will increase. The evidence shows a significant existing level of service opportunity in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr that is anticipated to increase with increased sales performance. Infiniti dealers are able to capture a larger percentage of sales closer to their dealership and are less effective at capturing sales to customers further away from the dealership. With respect to the existing Infiniti dealer network, South Motors currently captures 72.2 percent of the expected sales within four miles of its dealership. However, this capture percentage significantly decreases at greater distances; South Motors captures only an estimated 45.8 percent of expected sales at 10 to 12 miles from its dealership. Warren Henry exhibits a similar pattern, capturing 73.3 percent of expected sales within four miles of its dealership, but the drop-off is more dramatic with distance. Warren Henry captures only 28.3 percent of expected sales at 10 to 12 miles from its dealership and only 17.9 percent at 12 to 16 miles from its dealership. The proposed M10 dealership in Coral Gables is more than 10 miles from South Motors and more than 15 miles from Warren Henry. These data show that South Motors and Warren Henry both are too far from the Coral Gables area for either of them to adequately represent the area for vehicle sales. Customer convenience is gauged by determining the average drive distance consumers in the Coral Gables PMA must travel to reach an Infiniti dealership. With the 26-mile gap between the existing dealers in Miami-Dade County, customers in the Coral Gables PMA must drive an average of 13.2 miles, through congested conditions, to reach the nearest Infiniti dealer. This distance is significantly further than customers in the Coral Gables area must travel to reach other dealerships that sell competitive line-makes and models, including Mercedes- Benz, Audi, Cadillac, BMW, Lexis, Acura, and others. The lack of convenient sales and service access places Infiniti at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to other brands, and is a key reason for Infiniti's underperformance as a brand, both in the Coral Gables PMA and in the rest of the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. An analysis of the number of competitors per dealer further evidences that Infiniti is inadequately represented, in terms of number of dealers, within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. There are 51 competitive motor vehicle franchises in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr, two of which are the existing Infiniti dealerships, South Motors and Warren Henry. Thus, the Infiniti brand has 3.9 percent of the "shelf space," or share, of the competitive franchises within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. By contrast, the Florida Represented Standard enjoys 4.7 percent of the competitive "shelf space." This shows that Infiniti is underrepresented in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and would need to add 2.4 Infiniti dealers to have the same competitive "shelf space" as the other Infiniti franchises comprising the Florida Represented Standard. This evidences that the Infiniti brand is performing poorly in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr due to having too few dealerships in the Comm/Terr. These factors support the conclusion that the causes of Infiniti's inadequate sales and service performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables PMA, are the lack of convenient access to the Infiniti brand relative to its competitors and underrepresentation by having too few Infiniti dealers. 3. Size and Permanency of Reasonable Investments and Obligations Incurred by Existing Dealers to Perform Under Dealer Agreements South Motors has invested over $25 million in its dealership operations. This investment includes significant investments in purchasing and leasing property, as well as investing in the facilities from which South Motors operates. South Motors also has committed to upgrade its sales facility to IREDI standards, which will entail a substantial investment. As previously noted, Infiniti has committed to provide South Motors $550,000 to upgrade to IREDI standards. 4. Actions by Licensee Denying Existing Dealers Opportunity for Reasonable Growth or Market Expansion The evidence does not establish that Infiniti has taken any actions to deny existing dealers the opportunity for reasonable growth or market expansion. South Motors asserts that Infiniti's provision of $4.4 million of financial support to M10 gives it an unfair competitive advantage, which effectively denies it and other existing dealers the opportunity for reasonable growth or market expansion. However, South Motors did not provide any specific, persuasive evidence substantiating this assertion. The evidence shows that the financial assistance Infiniti has proposed to provide M10 is to help cover the costs of this proceeding and any subsequent appeals, the rent costs during the pendency of this proceeding and appeals, and start-up costs. This assistance is intended to help M10 break even, not gain any competitive advantage over the existing dealers. As it is, Infiniti is providing South Motors $550,000 toward renovating its existing dealership to meet IREDI standards, with the aim of helping make it a more competitive dealership in the luxury vehicle market. Further, the persuasive evidence establishes that had South Motors, as the initial preferred candidate, provided a formal proposal and signed a confidentiality agreement regarding a Coral Gables dealership, Infiniti likely was prepared to provide South Motors between $3 million and $5 million to open an Infiniti dealership in the Coral Gables open point. 5. Attempts by Licensee to Coerce Existing Dealers 160. There is no evidence that Infiniti attempted to coerce South Motors, Warren Henry, or any other existing Infiniti dealers to consent to the proposed Coral Gables dealership. 6. Distance, Travel Time, Traffic Patterns, and Accessibility between Existing Infiniti Dealers and Location of the Proposed Dealership As previously discussed, the South Motors and Warren Henry dealerships are approximately 26 air miles and 28.5 drive miles apart. M10 will be located in downtown Coral Gables, approximately 10.6 air miles and 11.2 drive miles from South Motors, and approximately 15.6 air miles and 17.3 drive miles from Warren Henry. As previously discussed, several populous communities in Miami-Dade County are located in the stretch between South Motors and Warren Henry. Traffic conditions between South Motors and Warren Henry are heavily congested, and customers in these communities, including in Coral Gables, who wish to purchase a vehicle or have a vehicle serviced at either existing Infiniti dealership must negotiate very congested traffic conditions to get to the dealership——a trip that may take between 30 and 45 minutes of drive time, depending on traffic conditions. A prime reason Infiniti is seeking approval to add M10 in Coral Gables is to increase convenience to luxury vehicle customers in this area which, as previously noted, is one of the top three luxury vehicle markets in the country. The evidence shows that convenience is a key consideration for luxury vehicle customers when choosing a dealership for purchase or servicing a vehicle. Due to M10's location proximate to a large luxury vehicle customer base, Infiniti anticipates that its sales and service performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables area, will improve. The evidence shows that the establishment of M10 will reduce the average drive distance to the nearest Infiniti dealer for customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. It is thus reasonable to infer that adding the M10 dealership in Coral Gables also will reduce the drive time for Infiniti customers to reach the nearest Infiniti dealership. 7. Likelihood of Benefits to Consumers due to Establishment of New Dealership that Cannot be Obtained by other Geographic or Demographic Changes or Expected Changes within the Comm/Terr 166. As previously discussed, the evidence shows that the establishment of M10 likely will benefit consumers in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr due to increased convenience in accessing an Infiniti dealership for sales and service and increased intrabrand and interbrand competition. Also as discussed, M10 is anticipated to be profitable and is not anticipated to significantly negatively affect South Motors. Thus, customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr will benefit from M10's establishment. 8. Whether the Protesting Dealer is in Substantial Compliance with its Dealer Agreement South Motors currently is in compliance with its Dealer Agreement. South Motors' dealership facility is older and outdated in some respects and does not comply with Infiniti's IREDI standards. However, South Motors has committed to renovating its facility to comply with IREDI standards. Historically, South Motors' performance was inadequate, but it has performed well since 2009, when the area now included in the Coral Gables open point was removed from its PMA. South Motors has won Infiniti's Award of Excellence. Infiniti is not claiming that South Motors is a bad dealer, only that, for a variety of reasons addressed herein, additional representation of Infiniti in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables area, is warranted. 9. Whether there is Adequate Interbrand or Intrabrand Competition in the Comm/Terr and Adequately Convenient Customer Care, Including Sales and Service Facilities Adequacy As previously addressed, Infiniti's below-average brand performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr indicates that there currently is not adequate intrabrand or interbrand competition for the Infiniti brand, largely due to underrepresentation by having only two dealerships in a large, heavily populated, congested area. South Motors engages in an aggressive advertising program and performs well for sales and service within its own PMA. However, the evidence shows that due to an inadequate number of Infiniti dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, the Infiniti brand does not compete particularly well against other luxury vehicle brands in the Comm/Terr. Also as previously discussed, the evidence shows that another substantial reason for Infiniti's brand underperformance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is that for a large number of customers in the Comm/Terr, including those in the Coral Gables area, convenient access to Infiniti sales and service facilities is lacking. The bulk of customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr seeking an Infiniti sales or service dealership must travel, in congested conditions, a substantial distance north, almost to Broward County, or a substantial distance south, below Kendall, to reach a dealership.35/ At the same time, Infiniti's competitors have dealerships located in more convenient areas of the Comm/Terr, including in Coral Gables, which helps them outcompete Infiniti for luxury vehicle sales. The evidence shows that establishing M10 at its proposed location will enhance interbrand and intrabrand competition, and also will enhance customer convenience with respect to drive distance and drive time to an Infiniti sales and service facility. 10. Whether Establishment of Proposed Dealership is Warranted and Justified Based on Economic and Marketing Conditions Pertinent to Dealers Competing in the Comm/Terr As previously discussed, in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, the Infiniti line-make historically has performed below average, and its performance is declining. In March 2014, Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr was approximately 65 percent of average based on the Florida Represented Standard benchmark. In Coral Gables, Infiniti's performance fared worse, with a sales performance of 56.1 percent of benchmark average. As previously noted, the data show that there are approximately 18,000 competitive luxury vehicle registrations per year in the Coral Gables area alone, making it the third largest luxury car market in the country. Employment in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr has steadily grown over the past five to six years, and the economic conditions are favorable for the motor vehicle business. The evidence shows that there is a large luxury vehicle customer base living in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, particularly near the location of the proposed M10 dealership. To that point, several of Infiniti's luxury vehicle competitors have dealerships in this area. As discussed in detail above, the evidence shows that the Infiniti brand, with only two existing dealerships in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, is underrepresented in the Comm/Terr. The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently has the largest sales opportunity per dealer of any market in Florida and if a third dealer were added in Coral Gables, the Comm/Terr still would have the largest sales opportunity per dealer in the state. Also as previously discussed, the evidence shows that establishment of M10 likely will not have a significant negative effect on the existing Infiniti dealerships in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. These economic and marketing conditions in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr support the establishment of M10. 11. Volume of Registrations and Service Business Transacted by Existing Dealers in the Comm/Terr As discussed above, the evidence shows that since 2011, Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr has been significantly below the Florida Represented Standard benchmark average, and is declining. With only two Infiniti dealerships, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently presents the greatest sales opportunity per dealer among all Florida markets, and that would continue to be the case with the addition of M10. The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr also currently has the largest number of Infiniti units in operation, so presents the greatest service opportunity in the state. If M10 were added, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr no longer would have the largest units in ownership in the state, but it would be the third largest service market in Florida. As previously discussed, the slight decrease in service opportunity per dealership is due to the current sales underperformance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. As Infiniti sales performance increases in the future with the addition of another dealership, the service opportunity available to all dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr also will increase. In sum, Infiniti's current underperformance in sales and service in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, with projected increases in both with the addition of another dealership, supports the establishment of M10. Findings of Ultimate Fact Regarding Adequate Representation in the Comm/Terr and in the Coral Gables PMA The evidence establishes that the existing Infiniti dealer network in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is making substantially fewer new Infiniti sales than expected compared to other Infiniti dealers in Florida based on the Florida Represented Standard, and also is capturing a significantly smaller percentage of available service opportunity in the Comm/Terr as a whole compared to the South Motors PMA, which is a dealer-represented PMA. Infiniti's performance has declined over time, and Infiniti is losing a significant amount of business to competitors. Accordingly, the existing Infiniti dealers are not achieving the volume of sales or service business reasonably expected in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. The evidence shows that Infiniti's inadequate sales and service performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is due to underrepresentation by an existing dealer network comprised of only two dealers 26 miles apart in a densely populated, heavily congested urban area. Infiniti's inadequate brand performance is not due to deficient sales effectiveness or service level by the existing dealers within their own PMAs. The Infiniti brand is performing at even lower levels in the Coral Gables PMA. In that area, the existing dealer network is making a small percentage of the expected new vehicle sales available and a very small percentage of the warranty service business captured in other represented markets in Florida. Coral Gables is located at the approximate midpoint of a 26-mile gap in Infiniti representation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr that includes downtown Miami and Coral Gables. With its current dealer network, Infiniti has the worst customer convenience of any competitive luxury vehicle brand in the Coral Gables PMA. Customers currently must drive an average of 13.2 miles to reach the nearest Infiniti dealership. The evidence indicates that the population, number of households, employment levels, number of competitive registrations, and units in operation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in Coral Gables, are likely to grow in the coming years, so that Infiniti's brand underperformance will not improve, but will continue to decline. The establishment of M10 in Coral Gables will significantly reduce the average drive distance and drive time to an Infiniti dealership for sales and service customers, thus improving customer convenience to the Infiniti brand. The proposed M10 dealership will increase the awareness of Infiniti's brand in the luxury vehicle market and will promote intrabrand and interbrand competition. The proposed new dealership will benefit the public interest by increasing employment in the community, contributing to positive community character, and generating tax revenue. The persuasive evidence shows that M10 is not likely to have a material negative impact on South Motors. There is sufficient sales and service opportunity in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and in the Coral Gables PMA to support the addition of the M10 dealership without materially affecting the existing dealers, including South Motors. Further, the evidence shows that addition of M10 will increase Infiniti's brand awareness and may generate additional business that may inure to the benefit of all Infiniti dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. The persuasive evidence establishes that any potential impact on South Motors, which is likely to be minimal at most, will be outweighed by the significant benefits to consumers, the public, and the Infiniti brand from the establishment of M10. In sum, Infiniti has met its burden to demonstrate, by the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the existing Infiniti dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make in the Comm/Terr, pursuant to the factors in section 320.642(2)(b). Accordingly, Infiniti has shown that the establishment of M10 as an Infiniti dealership should be approved. Relocation of Warren Henry South Motors asserts that M10 cannot be established due to the potential relocation of Warren Henry Infiniti. Specifically, South Motors asserts that Infiniti cannot be permitted to establish a dealership in Coral Gables until Warren Henry's potential relocation has occurred and its impact on the adequacy of representation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is evaluated. Over the years, Warren Henry has sought to relocate its dealership several times; however, none of these efforts has come to fruition. In 2012, Infiniti approved the relocation of Warren Henry to a new location at 14995 Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, and proposed relocation was noticed in the Florida Administrative Register in April 2013. The proposed relocation site is approximately 4.8 miles southeast of its present dealership location, 22 miles north of South Motors, and 12 miles from M10's proposed location. The proposed relocation site is within Warren Henry's existing PMA. As with Warren Henry's previous relocation efforts, problems have developed that have hindered its ability to secure the proposed relocation site. As a result, it missed all of the deadlines agreed to with Infiniti for relocating to the new site. As of the final hearing, Warren Henry still had not secured a lease on the site of its relocated dealership.36/ It is uncertain whether Warren Henry Infiniti will relocate, and if it does, when that relocation will occur. Moreover, even if Warren Henry were to eventually relocate to the proposed site, it would still be anticipated to capture only 18 percent of expected Infiniti sales in the Coral Gables area. This shows that the relocation would not address the inconvenience in accessing the Infiniti brand for customers in that area. In any event, the evidence shows that as the population in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr increases, it will become increasingly inconvenient for customers to reach an Infiniti dealership in the existing network. The evidence shows that adding the M10 dealership will make access to an Infiniti dealer significantly more convenient for customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables area. In sum, the addition of M10 will result in benefits to consumers that would not otherwise be obtained by other geographic or demographic changes or expected changes in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Identifiable Plot The evidence establishes that the Infiniti brand significantly underperforms for both sales and service in the Coral Gables PMA. As previously discussed, the Infiniti brand has been performing poorly in the Coral Gables area for several years, and that performance is in decline. By early 2014, Infiniti's brand performance had fallen to 56.1 percent, with continued decline projected. This is markedly lower than Infiniti's subpar sales performance, at 65 percent of benchmark average, in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole. The Coral Gables PMA is the worst-performing PMA for new vehicle sales in the state. Infiniti's service performance in the Coral Gables PMA, at 46.7 percent of benchmark average, also is poor, although not markedly poorer than in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole. South Motors currently performs well within its own PMA, but captures only 50 percent of luxury vehicle sales within the Coral Gables area. These data support the determination that Coral Gables is a discrete "identifiable plot" in which Infiniti sales and service are performing more poorly than in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole. M10's Service Location As previously noted, on April 4, 2014, DHSMV published two notices of publication for a new point, providing notice that Infiniti intended to allow the establishment of M10. The 14-2070 Notice stated in pertinent part: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that Infiniti... intends to allow the establishment of M10 Motors...as a dealership for the sale and service of Infiniti vehicles (line-make INFI) at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables (Miami-Dade County), Florida 33134, on or after June 1, 2014. The 14-2069 Notice stated in pertinent part: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that Infiniti... intends to allow the establishment of M10 Motors...as an Infiniti dealership with additional service facilities (line-make INFI) at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables (Miami-Dade County), Florida 33146 ("Ponce de Leon"). This service location on Ponce de Leon Boulevard will not be established independent of the sale and service facility located at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables, FL, but shall be established only in conjunction with and subject to the approval of the sale and service facility, which is being noticed simultaneously herewith. Further, Infiniti asserts the exemption for this additional service facility at Ponce de Leon Boulevard as provided in Section 32[0].642(6)(b), Florida Statutes, on or after June 1, 2014. Id. (emphasis added). The publication of two separate notices by DHSMV for the establishment of M10 was driven by correspondence submitted to the agency by Infiniti's Analyst for Dealer Agreements, who sent two letters giving notice of Infiniti's intent to establish M10. The language quoted above was taken directly from the letters submitted by Infiniti's analyst. Although the correspondence submitted to DHSMV, and, consequently, the notice published for Case No. 14-2069, refers to section 320.642(6), regarding "service-only" dealerships, the notice also contains specific language, quoted above, that makes abundantly clear that the service location on Ponce de Leon Boulevard is not a separate stand-alone dealership, but instead is a remote service performance location that is an integral part of a single M10 dealership location having a sales and service location on Le Jeune Road. Further, the evidence presented at the final hearing made clear that the Ponce de Leon service location was just that——a remote location at which all of the service for M10 would be performed. The evidence did not in any manner portray the Ponce de Leon facility as a stand-alone dealership. Accordingly, it is determined that this proceeding concerns the approval of one M10 Infiniti dealership, with its sales and service intake facility located at 2701 Le Jeune Road and its service performance location at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order granting the application of M10 Motors, Inc., d/b/a Infiniti of Coral Gables, Inc., as a dealer for the sale and service of Infiniti line-make vehicles, with a sales and service location at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables, Florida 33134, and a service location at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 July, 2015.
