The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership filed by El Sol Trading, Inc., and Fishers Auction Services, Inc., d/b/a Fisher Auto Equipment Sales (Petitioners), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that Respondent has a franchise agreement to sell or service SHEN motor vehicles, the line-make to be sold by Cycles and More, Inc. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent's dealership is physically located so as to meet the statutory requirements for standing to protest the establishment of the new point franchise motor vehicle dealership.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the protest filed in this case by Cycles and More, Inc., and granting Petitioners' request to establish a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership for the sale of SHEN motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 7th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Gloria Ma El Sol Trading, Inc., d/b/a Motobravo, Inc. 19877 Quiroz Court City of Industry, California 91789 Raymond L. Fisher Fishers Auction Services, Inc., d/b/a Fisher Auto Equipment Sales 119 Dixwood Avenue Edgewood, Florida 32132 Jeanne Ciriello Cycles & More, Inc. 5797 South Ridgewood Avenue Port Orange, Florida 32127 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by R. Bruce McKibben, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to non-compliance to the requirements set out in the Order to Show Cause—for both parties to file responses no later than June 19, 2009 as to why this matter should not be closed based on lack of response to the Initial 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 Galaxy Powersports, LLC d/b/a JCL International, LLC and New Wave Cycles, Inc. to sell motorcycles manufactured by Kaitong Motorcycle Manufacture Co. Ltd. (KAIT) at 14813 US Highway 19, Hudson, (Pasco County), Florida 34667. . DONE AND ORDERED this 2 g ay of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARL A. FORD, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this 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: Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Gary McCarthy New Wave Cycles, Inc. 7436 Hatteras Drive Hudson, Florida 34667 Andrew Hennosy Connie Hennosy Pine Woods Center, Inc., d/b/a Pasco Cycle 10312 State Road 52 Hudson, Florida 34669 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 R. Bruce McKibben 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 these cases is whether two applications for new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships filed by Puma Cycles Corporation and Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC (Respondents), should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the two applications filed by the Respondents to establish new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships at Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC, for the sale of line-make FSTI motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2012.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a motor vehicle dealer license filed by Lambretta International, LLC, and Retro Unlimited, Inc., should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the application for establishment of the motor vehicle dealer franchise at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Caroline Khurana Lambretta International, LLC 14339 Lake City Way Northeast Seattle, Washington 98125 Chris Densmore Scooter Escapes, LLC, d/b/a Scooter Escapes 1450 1st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Edward G. Dreyer, III Retro Unlimited, Inc. 3200 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Elizabeth W. McArthur, 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 withdrawal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Gorilla Motor Works LLC and Sunset Point Scooters, Inc. to sell motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 2300 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater (Pinellas County), Florida 33765. Filed June 23, 2011 8:00 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this _ 7 7 day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sandra C. Lambert, Intérim Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A435, MS 80 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this_/7 day of June, 2011. S ini Vinayak, Dealer Administrator 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. SCL:vlg Copies furnished: Diana Hammer Gorilla Motor Works LLC 12485 44" Street North, Suite A Clearwater, Florida 33762 Michelle R. Stanley Tropical Scooters LLC 11610 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 33778 totent2inimbA gan yslssQ ASyRGIY ins Doug Vitello Sunset Point Scooters, Inc. 112 South Maywood Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33765 Elizabeth W. McArthur Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, JSL Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Ft. Lauderdale Mitsubishi (JSL), is entitled to relocate its motor vehicle dealership.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner MMSA is a distributor and licensee of motor vehicles as defined by Section 320.60, Florida Statutes. Compared to other established licensees, MMSA is a relative newcomer to the market in Broward County, Florida. Nevertheless MMSA is emerging as a brand able to effectively compete in the segments in which it offers vehicles. Motor vehicle sales are divided into segments so that new car registrations may be tracked by popularity and dealer performance may be compared as to the vehicles it sells and not with those against which it cannot compete. For example, Mitsubishi does not compete in the truck market as it does not offer a new truck for sale. Therefore, Mitsubishi dealers are not expected to effectively compete in the new truck market. MMSA does, however, offer a vehicle to compete in the following segments: basis small (Mirage), lower middle (Galant), upper middle (Diamante), sporty coupe (Eclipse/Spyder), sports car (3000 GT/Spyder), middle SUV (Montero Sport), and upper middle SUV (Montero). As to all of these segments, MMSA has experienced a significant growth in sales in Broward County, Florida. Historically, there were only two franchised Mitsubishi dealers in Broward County. One of those dealerships is the Petitioner JSL. The other long-time Mitsubishi dealer is located to the north of the Petitioner JSL. That dealer is identified in this record as Lighthouse Point. Principal owners of the Respondent King also own the Lighthouse Point dealership. The Petitioner JSL is a franchised motor vehicle dealer fully authorized to lease, sell, and service the product of MMSA. The Petitioner JSL is located at 200 East Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Petitioner JSL has always been located at its current address. The former owner of the franchise owns the real estate and JSL rents the land and facilities in order to conduct its business. The current owners of the Petitioner JSL purchased the dealership in 1997/1998. The lease with the former owner will expire in the next few years and it is the Petitioners’ goal to relocate the dealership to a more modern, larger facility. If unable to relocate, however, the Petitioner could extend its lease with the former owner until approximately 2012. The condition of the property as well as the terms of the lease were known to the Petitioner JSL at the time it elected to purchase the dealership. Because it does not own the facility, the Petitioner JSL has few incentives to improve the physical appearance of the dealership. Thus far it has done little more than paint the buildings. Both the Petitioner JSL and Lighthouse Point are located in the eastern portion of Broward County. The Respondents King and Seidle are also franchised motor vehicle dealers fully authorized to lease, sell, and service the product of MMSA. These dealerships are located in the western portion of the county. The Respondent King's dealership is located at 4950 North State Road 7, Coconut Creek, Florida. The Respondent Seidle's dealership is located at 5395 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. The population growth in Broward County over the last five years is predominantly in the western portion of the county. The areas west of the Petitioner’s dealership have mushroomed in growth both in households and numbers of drivers. Employment and incomes have also increased. As an emerging brand seeking to capitalize on the growth opportunities in the western portion of the county, the Petitioner MMSA encouraged two existing franchised dealers (the Respondents herein) to open new point dealerships in the western portion of Broward County. Consequently, the Respondent King built and opened a new point dealership in the northwest quadrant of the county. This new dealership opened in 1998 and has thus far proven to be a successful franchise. Despite its investment of more than three million dollars (some of which might be allocated to another dealer) in the acquisition, construction, and opening of the dealership, this Respondent has already established itself as the leading sales franchise in the county. Similarly the Respondent Seidle was offered a new point in the southwest quadrant of the county. It acquired, and with MMSA’s help, constructed, and opened its new franchise dealership in March of 2000. The sales data for this dealer is limited due to its recent opening. Based upon conservative estimates, however, it is expected that this new dealership will prove successful at its location. Like the Respondent King, the Respondent Seidle spent in excess of a million dollars in order to open its new point. Unlike the dealership Mr. Seidle owns in Miami, the new point in Davie is considered state of the art in design and function. It is projected that the Davie dealership will perform more successfully than the Miami Seidle dealership. When both King at Coconut Creek and Seidle at Davie were proposed the Respondents assumed they would be the only Mitsubishi dealers authorized to locate in the western half of the county. The Petitioner MMSA did not make any assurances of that nature. The Petitioner MMSA did not become aware of or consider the Petitioner’s request to relocate until after the other two dealers were either under construction or in the final stages of establishing their dealerships in the western portion of the county. The Petitioner MMSA did not misrepresent the relocation request or hide its intention to support the request from the Respondents. The Petitioner JSL seeks to relocate its dealership to the west to a parcel owned by its principal investor, Mr. Smith. The dealership would occupy a portion of the lot now housing Mr. Smith’s Buick dealership. Additionally, the entire facility would be improved in appearance and amenities. Theoretically, the Petitioner JSL would be more able to compete with the newer facilities also located in the western portion of the county. The Petitioner’s current location is nearer to the downtown area of Fort Lauderdale. It is located in a marginal neighborhood with crime and undesirable areas in close proximity. The physical plant itself is dated in appearance and opportunities. The Petitioner JSL has not spent any substantial amount of funds to improve the physical plant, its security, or to acquire off-site storage or support facilities. The proposed relocation site is also in a crime- stricken area however it is west of the predominant crime area. The Petitioner JSL is desirous of improving the proposed site. One of JSL's primary investors would also benefit from such improvements. The Buick dealership owned by Mr. Smith would continue to operate at the property but would have the benefit of the improved facilities. All four Mitsubishi dealers have to shuttle customers to work if service work is to be performed during the day. The driving times for such shuttles would increase depending on the work location of the customers. Persons working in the downtown Fort Lauderdale area would most conveniently utilize the Petitioner’s current location for service. All four dealerships have facilities that meet or exceed the Mitsubishi standards for sales and service volumes. The proposed relocation site would also comply with the Mitsubishi guidelines for sales and service. On August 20, 1999, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles published a notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating MMSA's intention to allow the Petitioner JSL to relocate its dealership from its current address to 2300 North State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The notice of the proposed relocation correctly specified that the dealer operator of the relocated Mitsubishi dealership to be Tak Liu a/k/a Ted Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the current dealer operator and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Petitioner JSL. Mr. Johnson assumed his role with the company when it was purchased from the former owner of the dealership, a Mr. Holman. Originally, the principal investors of the Petitioner JSL were Ted Johnson, Philip P. Smith, and Jon F. Lutter. Mr. Lutter subsequently sold his interest in the Petitioner JSL to Michael Dayhoff. Regardless of the accuracy of the notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly regarding the ownership of the Petitioner JSL, such notice correctly identified the dealer seeking to relocate and accurately described its current and proposed locations. Thus all dealers presumably affected by the proposed relocation were put on adequate notice of the proposal submitted by the Petitioners. The Respondent King's dealership is approximately 13 miles in straight line distance from the existing location of the Petitioner JSL. If relocated to the proposed site, JSL would be approximately 11.5 miles in straight line distance from the Respondent King. In terms of driving time, the Respondent King's dealership is approximately 26 minutes in driving time from the Petitioner's existing location. Comparatively the Respondent King's location is approximately 20 minutes in driving time from the Petitioner's proposed location. As for the Respondent Seidle, the Petitioner's current location is approximately 11 miles in straight line distance from the existing JSL dealership. If relocated to the proposed site, the Respondent Seidle would be approximately 9 miles in distance from the Petitioner JSL. If JSL were allowed to relocate, the driving time to the Respondent Seidle's dealership would not significantly change. For purposes of this case, it is determined that the community or territory (comm/terr) served by these dealers is Broward County, Florida. The growth in this market will continue in the foreseeable future as the growths in population, employment, and industry new vehicle registrations have demonstrated. Moreover, the current and future demographic factors indicate that Mitsubishi should be adequately represented by four dealers in this comm/terr. As presently configured the Mitsubishi dealers in the comm/terr are on average 5.2 miles from the consumers in this market area. If allowed to relocate, the distance for consumers would be reduced to 4.4 miles. Either of these distances would allow Mitsubishi to effectively compete with like segment products. The traffic patterns along the major north/south and east/west corridors in Broward County make all existing dealers easily accessible either north to south or east to west. There are no barriers to prevent customers from conveniently accessing dealers to the east, west, south, or north. The relocation of the Petitioner JSL to the proposed site would not dramatically improve this accessibility except for those customers who reside in the western portions of the county. And while the relocation of the JSL dealership to the proposed site would increase the convenience to the western customers, the Mitsubishi customers to the east who were previously served by this dealer would be required to travel a greater distance for sales or service. With the opening and establishment of Seidle in Davie, Mitsubishi customers to the southwest will also have that point for sales and service convenience. The proposed site does not constitute an identifiable plot within the comm/terr to support the relocation of the existing dealer. The newly opened Seidle together with King should adequately provide sales and service to the western portion of this market. Any inconvenience in sales or service previously experienced by the customers in the western portion of the county will be quickly cured. With the expansion of the two new dealers in the western portion of the comm/terr, the Petitioner MMSA should experience increased visibility and sales. The relocation of the Petitioner JSL would diminish the expected success of the Respondents in this western portion of the comm/terr. It is too early to determine whether the Respondent Seidle will be as successful as the Respondent King. Given the investments of both of these dealers, however, it is reasonable to afford them more time to demonstrate the strengths of their abilities to market to the western portion of the comm/terr. Both dealers should be able to meet their obligations to the Petitioner MMSA. Given the demonstrated success of the Respondent King, and the projections for this comm/terr, it is reasonably expected market penetration of the existing dealers as presently located will adequately serve the comm/terr. In this case the Petitioner MMSA has encouraged the existing dealers by offering the existing dealers the opportunities to establish new points in the west, by recognizing the opportunity for sales growth in this comm/terr, and by assuring an adequate number of dealers for this market. The relocation of the Petitioner's dealership will not greatly improve the network of Mitsubishi dealers in Broward County. The Petitioner MMSA has not attempted to coerce the existing dealers into consenting to the proposed relocation of the Petitioner JSL. All existing Mitsubishi dealers are in substantial compliance with their dealer agreements. Without the proposed relocation there is adequate interbrand and intrabrand competition in the comm/terr. Without the proposed relocation there is adequate customer convenience in terms of sales and service. Without sufficient actual data from the sales for the Respondent Seidle, it is impossible to determine whether the relocation is warranted and justified based on economic and market conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the comm/terr. The reasonable projected sales suggest the current dealer configuration to be sufficient and adequate as contemplated by the statute. If future population or household growths exceed the levels projected or if actual sales demonstrate a stronger market than projected, additional points in the western portion of the county may be warranted. The actual volumes of registrations by the existing dealers suggest that the Petitioner JSL could perform stronger without encroaching on the sales reasonably expected to be made by the Respondents. With regard to the Petitioners' assertions that the current neighborhood limits the JSL's ability to do business, it is determined that other motor vehicle dealerships in proximity to the Petitioner's store have remained in business in the neighborhood. Those dealers (Lincoln-Mercury, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Isuzu, Ford, Jaguar, and Honda) have not relocated due to crime or other neighborhood problems. It is further determined that the data relied upon by Petitioners to calculate a shortfall in the comm/terr failed to recognize that the fourth dealer, the Respondent Seidle, was not in business until March 2000. The addition of the fourth point will relieve an deficiency in performance for the comm/terr.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the request to relocate the motor vehicle dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 John Forehand, Esquire Walter E. Forehand, Esquire Myers, Forehand & Fuller, P.A. 402 North Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kieran P. Fallon, P.A. 80 Southwest 80th Street, Suite 2804 Miami, Florida 33130 Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbil & Brennan, L.L.P. 2282 Killearn Center Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3561 James Gregory Humphries, Esquire Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801-4626 Enoch John Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 William T. Joyce, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Winter Park, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of motorcycles manufactured by Zongshen Industrial Group (ZONG). Petitioners have proposed the establishment of a new dealership to sell the same line and make of motorcycles as those sold by Respondent. Respondent's dealership is located at 306 West Main Street, Apopka, Florida 32712. Petitioners' proposed dealership would be located at 2650 West Fairbanks Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789. The proposed dealership is within a 12.5-mile radius of Respondent's dealership. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of the proposed dealership.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the establishment of Petitioners' proposed franchise. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 29th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkland Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 James Sursely Action Orlando Motorsports 306 West Main Street Apopka, Florida 32712 Patricia Fornes Zongshen, Inc. 3511 Northwest 113th Court Miami, Florida 33178 Randy Lozanas Scooter City USA, LLC 2650 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents' application to establish a dealership to sell motorcycles manufactured by Chongqing Astronautical Bashan Motorcycle Manufacturer Co., Ltd. (BASH line-make), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an “Official Notice of Protest – Petition for Determination” dated August 21, 2014, with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (HSMV). The protest/petition opposes Respondent’s noticed intention to establish a dealership to be called Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC, at 1431 South Woodland Boulevard, Deland (Volusia County), Florida. Notice of that intent was duly published in the Florida Administrative Register on August 29, 2014. (There was no explanation provided as to why Petitioner’s protest/petition was filed before the publication of the notice.) Petitioner’s protest/petition asserts that Respondent’s proposed new dealership will be located “within our territory.” Petitioner further asserts that Peace Industry Group is its “number two supplier of scooters, and represents 38% of our scooter sales.” Petitioner did not appear at final hearing or present any competent evidence to support these allegations. Respondent provided evidence suggesting that Petitioner has only purchased seven motor-scooters from Peace Industry Group. Petitioner did not appear at final hearing and present evidence as to its “standing to protest” as required by section 320.642(3), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2014 version.) Conversely, Respondent presented evidence that Petitioner’s dealership in Deland, Florida, has closed and gone out of business. This unrefuted evidence proves that Petitioner no longer has standing to protest Respondent’s proposed new dealership in the area. The propriety of Petitioner’s protest is the only issue in this proceeding. A petitioner without standing cannot pursue such a challenge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles denying Petitioner, Navitas Financial Group, Inc., d/b/a Pompano Pats Deland's protest of Respondent's proposed new dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-338 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 (eServed) Steve Hurm, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 (eServed) Meiredith Huang Peace Industry Group (USA), Inc. 2649 Mountain Industrial Boulevard Tucker, Georgia 30084 Patrick M. Johnson The Navitas Financial Group, Inc. 2075 South Woodland Boulevard Deland, Florida 32720 Jeff Rupp Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC 1861 Marysville Drive Deltona, Florida 32725 G. Michael Smith, Esquire Smith Collins, LLC 8565 Dunwoody Place Building 15 Atlanta, Georgia 30350 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Dadeland Dodge, Inc. (Dadeland) should be permitted to relocate a motor vehicle dealership from 8455 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Dade County, Florida, to a proposed location at 16501 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Chrysler manufacturers Dodge automobiles and trucks which are sold by a network of motor vehicle dealerships. In Florida, such dealerships are governed by the provisions of Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. Dadeland and Spitzer are dealerships selling Dodge motor vehicles in Dade County, Florida. There are five Dodge dealers in the community or territory, all of which are within Dade County. Three of the dealers are located north of the existing Dadeland site: Maroone Dodge is near the Broward County line at a point which sells into Broward; Potamkin Dodge North is in North Miami, and Potamkin Dodge is in Hialeah. Dadeland is currently located at 8455 South Dixie Highway (U.S. 1), Miami, Florida. It seeks to relocate its place of business to 16501 South Dixie Highway, Miami. Spitzer is also located on South Dixie Highway just north of Homestead, Florida. Its current location is 17.3 miles south of the existing Dadeland dealership and 11.5 miles south of the proposed Dadeland location. The criteria applicable to this case are found in Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. Such provision requires a determination of whether there is adequate representation in the community or territory. The term "community or territory" is not defined by law. In this case, the community or territory is the area used by the manufacturer to define the dealers' trading zones. Geographically the community or territory includes all of Dade County and small portions of Broward and Monroe Counties. In determining whether Chrysler has adequate representation in the community or territory, sales data was compiled for all new motor vehicle sales registered within the geographic area defined as the community or territory. Such data was for 1994 and 1995 years with projections calculated based upon actual past performance. The automobile industry classifies motor vehicles in segments lumping cars with cars and trucks with trucks. Typically, segments are designated or defined by companies such as R.L. Polk which tracks new vehicle sales. The segments group vehicles which presumably compete against one another for buyers. Dodge does not compete in all car segments. For example, it has no vehicle which is classified as mini-subcompact. Similarly, trucks are also classified into segments. Dodge competes in five of the manufacturers' ten segments. In this case, Dodge sales in the community or territory (Comm/Terr) have been compared to Dodge sales in the nation as a whole. In order to account for the buying preferences of the community or territory, the Dodge sales for this community or territory have been adjusted to consider the segment preferences of the Dade Comm/Terr buyers. In computing these projections all sales, foreign and domestic, have been considered. Chrysler does not distinguish between imports and domestics because all vehicles within the segments compete against the Chrysler entry in the segment. While some entries may, by historical buying pattern, have proved more successful, Dodge registers sales in all segments in which it competes. In some instances Dodge has competed well. For example, Chrysler was the originator of the minivan, both domestics and import manufacturers have introduced vehicles to compete in those segments. Customers looking for a vehicle in the minivan segment are going to look for the best minivan they can find, regardless of whether an import or domestic. By comparing Dodge's sales penetration in each vehicle segment in the nation with the industry available in each segment in the community or territory, an appropriate standard is established to determine whether this area is receiving adequate representation. Measuring penetration within each segment takes into account differences in consumer preferences between the two areas without regard to brand. Utilizing this segment analysis, the reasonably expected market share for Dodge in the Comm/Terr is 5.89% of retail industry for cars and trucks. Dodge penetration in the community or territory has been below expected levels in 1994 and 1995. Dodge penetration compared with its expected share (utilizing the national average area as a standard and adjusted for local segment preferences) was between 51.35% and 59.69% effective. On the basis of the net shortfall in units, or number of vehicles which, at the minimum, would be required to be registered in order to bring the community or territory up to the expected performance, the 1994 shortfall was 1075 units, and in 1995 was 907 units. Even using a Florida sales average (as opposed to the national average) as a standard for measuring whether Dodge is receiving adequate representation in this Comm/Terr, the performance of the Dodge network in this community or territory falls short. Based upon the foregoing it is concluded that Dodge has lost sales opportunity in the community or territory and that the network of Dodge dealers within this Comm/Terr have failed to adequately represent Chrysler. The community or territory has experienced growth in population, driving age population, and households during the last ten years. This growth is expected to continue. Employment has also grown and corresponds to a predominance of census traits reflecting average household incomes of over $25,000. Presumably such households represent potential new vehicle buyers. Total industry car and truck registrations in the community or territory have grown from 108,483 in 1993 to 112,767 in 1995. Spitzer sales increased in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew and have continued to increase. Spitzer's sales history is as follows: 369 (1991); 527 (1992); 506 (1993); 567 (1994); and 644 (1995). 24. Since 1980, the number of Dodge dealers in the community or territory has decreased by one. Thus, it is important to assure that the remaining Dodge dealerships are appropriately located to serve the car buying population of the market. The importance of the number of dealers also relates to Dodge's major competitors in Dade. Six different brands have more than five points: Ford(10); Chevrolet (7); Honda (7); Chrysler-Plymouth (6); Jeep-Eagle (6); and Toyota (6). There are five dealerships within the Comm/Terr for Lincoln-Mercury, Pontiac, Nissan, and Mazda. The current Dadeland facility is a small facility with no room to expand. Other dealerships in the area offer modern, large facilities. The current Dadeland facility has no enclosed showroom with a very small sales area. The current Dadeland facility is leased by its owner to Chrysler Realty, which in turn leases it to Dadeland. The lease on this real property expires in 1997. Chrysler Realty has no right to renew it. Despite searching for land since 1992, Chrysler Realty has not been able to locate any land within two miles of the existing Dadeland dealership upon which this dealer could relocate. Although the most preferable relocation of Dadeland would move the dealership to the west, there is no site available for use as an automobile dealership in that area either. Other competitive dealerships are located south of the existing Dadeland location along U.S. 1. If Chrysler is not able to relocate Dadeland and were to lose the point, the reduction of the dealerships by one would have an adverse impact on competition, the consumer, and on dealer sales by leaving a void in an interconnected market. Dadeland proposes to relocate from its current location at the extreme far north end of the Dadeland auto cluster, into the center of an auto cluster on U.S. 1, in the immediate vicinity of many other dealerships. The auto cluster in which Spitzer is located in Homestead contains most of the same franchises which are in the auto cluster into which Dadeland proposes to relocate. Many of the same line-make dealerships, located in both clusters, are closer to one another, or about as close, as would be Dadeland and Spitzer if the relocation is permitted. The proximity of intra-brand competition promotes same line-make competition which in turn, makes strong inter-brand competitors out of both dealers. Close proximity is, generally, a positive factor for both dealerships. The pattern of Spitzer's sales, which extend in a broad pattern, suggests that Spitzer does and will continue to, make sales in close proximity to other Dodge dealers in the Comm/Terr, especially Dadeland. Spitzer penetrates the market within two miles of its dealership at a rate of 4.9%. This level of penetration falls below the national average and indicates that there is additional sales opportunity to Spitzer within two miles of its dealership. While Spitzer maintains a higher level of penetration within a six-mile radius of its dealership, its share drops after that. Whether at the distance of the proposed Dadeland relocation or where it is now, Spitzer's sales penetration in those areas is low. The relocation of the Dadeland dealership will likely benefit consumers and the public interest. It will provide the growing population of the community or territory with a more convenient place to shop for Dodges in close proximity to the other dealerships where they shop for other brands. Because of the untapped opportunity for Dodge in the community or territory, and depending on Spitzer's response to the competition, ample opportunity exists for both dealers to increase sales by capitalizing on the available sales opportunity in the area. If the relocated Dadeland dealership performs in the future in a similar manner to the way in which it is currently performing at its current location, there should be no adverse impact on the existing dealers, including Spitzer. Dealers are accustomed to the cyclical nature of the automobile business. Sales go up and down through the cycle. Any number of factors could contribute to an individual dealer's sales going up or down. Dealers make adjustments in the operation of their businesses in order to maximize their profits. Within the industry cycle, there are also shifts in the dealers' business between new and used car sales. If new cars are not popular in a down cycle, used cars become far more popular. When buyers don't have the money to buy new vehicles, they will look at used ones. Typically, when the new car business is down, the used car business will be up and service business will be up. Consequently, a dealership's profit should not correlate solely with new car sales. All of Spitzer's estimations of lost new vehicle sales, and the lost profits resulting from those lost sales, were based upon the premise that Spitzer (and the other Dodge dealers) can compete only in the domestic industry market. The persuasive evidence presented in this cause does not support that premise. Accordingly, Spitzer's sales and economic loss estimates are rejected. The Spitzer facility is adequate to serve the Homestead area and to sell into the community or territory as a whole. Spitzer should continue to increase its sales and receive a return on its investment in the facility. Chrysler is attempting to relocate Dadeland in order to promote the existing dealer network as opposed to seeking a new point to address lost market opportunity. Chrysler Realty has executed an agreement with Dadeland which provides that Chrysler Realty will build a new facility for Dadeland on property that it has purchased. All of the costs for that facility, including the purchase price of the land and all costs incurred in the construction of the building, including surveys, impact fees, architect and engineering costs will form the basis for a monthly rental amount. Chrysler Realty's return on the total amount is fixed at eleven percent. All dealerships who rent from Chrysler Realty, including one owned by Spitzer in Ohio, pay rent in accordance with the uniform policy and computation proposed for this relocation. There is no evidence that Chrysler has denied its existing dealers opportunities for growth. There is no evidence that Chrysler coerced its existing dealers to consent to the proposed relocation. Spitzer achieved its minimum sales responsibility for 1995; therefore, there is no evidence that Spitzer is not in compliance with its dealer agreement with Chrysler.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered granting Dadeland's request to relocate its dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1997. APPENDIX At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties stipulated to September 30, 1996, as the deadline for filing proposed recommended orders. This date was presumably selected to secure rulings on the proposed findings of fact. While the parties later waived that opportunity and agreed to submit their proposed orders on October 2, 1996, specific rulings are included below where citation to the record was noted by the party. Where no citation was listed, the proposed finding of fact is rejected unless otherwise stated in the findings of fact above. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Chrysler: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26 through 30, 31, 55, 56, 57, 63, 65, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 136, 137, 138, 139 and 140 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as argument or comment of law. Paragraphs 8 through 11 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are rejected as comment of law or argument. Paragraphs 19 through 21 are rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is accepted with the deletion of the word "very" before "conservative" which is contrary to the weight of credible evidence or not defined adequately in the record. Paragraphs 32 through 54 are rejected as argument or comment on the evidence unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Paragraphs 58 through 62 are rejected as argument or comment on the evidence unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Paragraph 64 is rejected as unnecessary to the conclusion reached. Paragraphs 66 through 70 are rejected as comment or argument not necessary to conclusions reached. Paragraph 73 is comment on the evidence. The relocation of the dealership is justified because it can't continue where it is; and, in terms of economic and other conditions, it would be damaging to the Dodge product sales which is already inadequately represented in the Comm/Terr. Paragraph 77 is rejected as comment and unnecessary. 13 Paragraphs 82 through 84 are rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary. Paragraphs 89 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 95 and 96 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 99 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 104 through 107 are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 114 through 116 are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 118 is rejected as comment or speculation unnecessary to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 119 through 135 are unnecessary and comment on the evidence more in the form of argument than fact. To the extent findings have been made which support Chrysler's argument, such findings are accepted. Paragraph 138 is comment and the editorial quality of its statement is rejected as argumentative. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Spitzer: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 75 through 80, 87, 91 are accepted. Paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 12 is rejected in that it considers only geographic proximity as an impacting factor and ignores dealer performance opportunities and the opportunity for additional sales in the Comm/Terr. Paragraph 15 is rejected as it ignores the opportunity for new sales in the Comm/Terr which should offset adverse effects, if any. With regard to paragraph 16, it is accepted that the optimal location for the relocation would be north and west of the proposed site, however, no such site is available. Therefore, references to such site are rejected as irrelevant albeit factually correct. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant; Dadeland will have to future sales at its current location. Paragraphs 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of persuasive evidence, or argument. With regard to paragraph 31, with the addition of "and west" such paragraph is accepted as factually accurate but ultimately irrelevant. Paragraphs 32 through 47 are rejected in their conclusions as contrary to the weight of persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 48 through 63 are rejected as argument, comment on evidence or contrary to the weight of persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 69 through 72 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 74 through 86 are rejected as comment, argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 88 and 90, 92, 93, and 94 are rejected as comment, incomplete, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel E. Myers, Esquire Walter E. Forehand, Esquire Robert A. Bass, Esquire Myers, Forehand & Fuller 402 North Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Room B439, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Division of Motor Vehicles Room A432, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by P. Michael Ruff, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to non-compliance to the requirements set out in the Order to Show Cause—for both parties to file responses no later than July 26, 2009 as to why this matter should not be closed based on lack of response to the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. 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 Galaxy Powersports, LLC d/b/a JCL International, LLC and Kitai Powersports, Inc. to sell motorcycles manufactured by Kaitong Motorcycle Manufacture Co. Ltd. (KAIT) at 228 North 3™ Street, Jacksonville, (Duval County), Florida 32250. DONE AND ORDERED this bu of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this day of August, 2009. i Vinayak, Dealer nat. Administrator 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/vig Copies furnished: Leo Su . Galaxy Powersports, LLC d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Jim Lee Road Power USA, LLC 927 North 3 Street Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 Claudio Biltoc Kitai Powersports, Inc. 143 Belmont Drive St. Johns, Florida 32259 Pete Biltoc Kitai Powersports, Inc. 13887 Sea Prairie Street Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Rustin Murray Kitai Powersports, Inc. 400 North Pimlico Street St. Augustine, Florida 32090 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. Michael Ruff 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
