The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner has standing to protest the establishment of an additional autocycle dealership; and, if so, whether Petitioner is adequately representing this line of vehicles in the relevant territory or community pursuant to section 320.642, Florida Statutes (2019).1/
Findings Of Fact iMotorsports is located in Pinellas County. No evidence was provided regarding its address or location. The parties stipulated, however, that iMotorsports is located 45.9 miles from Gables Motorsports, and is outside of a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership, Gables Motorsports. Gables Motorsports is located in Pasco County, Florida at 28009 Wesley Chapel Boulevard, Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and University of Florida, Bureau of Economic Research, the population of Pasco County, Florida, was 464,697 as of April 1, 2010. The estimated population as of April 1, 2018, for this same area was 515,077. Vanderhall manufactures "autocycles" or two-passenger, three-wheeled motor vehicles and sells them nationally. At the time of the hearing there were eight to ten dealerships distributing the Vanderhall autocycles in Florida, and there were 55 Vanderhall dealerships or distributors nationwide. In these proceedings, Vanderhall seeks to allow Gables Motorsports to serve as a dealership to sell and service the Vanderhall autocycles. Although no franchise agreement was offered into evidence, based on Mr. Saba's testimony, the undersigned finds in June or July 2018, iMotorsports entered into an agreement with Vanderhall to sell its autocycles. According to the documentation offered by Vanderhall, iMotorsports has sold 15 Vanderhall autocycles since it became a Vanderhall dealership, approximately 14 months ago. None of those sales were to households within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership at Gables Motorsports. Mr. Saba agreed iMotorsports had not had any sales to households in the 12.5 mile radius around Gables Motorsports, but argued at the hearing that verbal promises were made by Vanderhall that it would not establish any other Vanderhall dealerships in Florida. Ultimate Findings Regarding Standing iMotorsports is an existing dealership that sells Vanderhall autocycles. iMotorsports is not within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership at Gables Motorsports. iMotorsports has failed to establish that during the 12-month period preceding the filing of the application for the proposed dealership by Gables Motorsports and Vanderhall, iMotorsports or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of the Vanderhall autocycles to registered household addresses within a 12.5 mile radius of Gables Motorsports. Therefore, iMotorsports does not have standing to bring this challenge pursuant to section 320.642(3).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles finding iMotorsports lacks standing, and dismissing iMotorsports' challenge of the Respondents' new dealership application for the sale of Vanderhall vehicles at Gables Motorsports. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Burruss is a licensed and franchised American Motors dealer. Burruss has been the sole AMC dealer in the Tarpon-West Pasco County area since 1960. Burruss is in compliance with its franchise agreement with American Motors Sales Corporation. Both Burruss and New Port are located on U.S. Highway 19, a distance of six miles from each other. U.S. Highway 19 is the only major north-south thoroughfare in the Tarpon-West Pasco area. Portions of U.S. Highway 19 have been improved in the past years so that much of the highway is six-laned in the Tarpon-West Pasco area; the unimproved portions of the highway are four-laned. The recent improvements to U.S. Highway 19 in the Tarpon-West Pasco area have improved the traffic flow along U.S. Highway 19. (Findings 1 through 6 are contained in the Prehearing Stipulation.) Burruss is located in Tarpon Springs, which is in the northernmost part of Pinellas County. New Port is located in New Port Richey, which is in Pasco County. There is presently no AMC dealer in Pasco County. The closest AMC dealer to the north of Burruss his in Brooksville, some 35 miles to the north. The AMC dealers in the area are in Tampa, some 27 miles south of New Port Richey; in Clearwater, some 25 miles south of New Port Richey; and Burruss in Tarpon Springs, some six miles south of the proposed location. New Port has been a franchised Lincoln Mercury automobile dealer for three and a half years and is fully qualified to operate the proposed franchise. New Port has agreed to build a 1600 square foot showroom, to have mechanics factory-trained, and to spend in excess of $41,000 in advertising the AMC products during its first year of operation. It has also agreed to maintain a 60-day supply of automobiles in stock. Pasco County has been one of the fastest growing Florida counties in the past ten years, with most of this growth in the western part of the county near U.S. 19. In 1970 Pasco County had a population of 76,000, which increased to 193,643 in 1980 (Exhibit NP-1). In 1981 a study was conducted in the Pasco County area to determine if there was an open point in this area. A copy of this report was submitted as Exhibit NP-2. From this study AMC determined that the area previously serviced by Burruss should be divided into two areas with the southern area comprising the areas containing the zip codes of Tarpon Springs, Crystal Beach, Holiday, Ozone, and Palm Harbor. This is designated the new Tarpon Springs area. All of these communities are in Pinellas County except Holiday, which is in Pasco County. The northern area, which comprises west Pasco County and is the area in which it is contended that AMC is inadequately represented, includes the zip codes for New Port Richey, Aripeka, Elfers, Odessa, and Port Richey. After obtaining the results of this study, American Motors Sales Corporation solicited dealers in this area to apply for an AMC franchise. Burruss became an AMC dealer in 1960, a Jeep dealer in 1970, and a Renault dealer in 1979. Burruss also sells Datsun vehicles, the sale of which runs 25 to 30 percent, by number of units, above its sales of the AMC-Jeep- Renault line, despite the fact that a competing Datsun dealer is located in Pasco County approximately three miles north of Burruss on U.S. 19. During the past ten years ten major shopping malls or plazas have been built in the New Port Richey-West Pasco area, the number of banks or savings and loan institutions have grown from ten to more than 65, and six new car dealerships have been established, to bring the total to nine. Burruss' sales of AMC vehicles reached a peak of 200 per year in 1975 and have steadily declined since that time. Cross-sales figures show that from 45 percent to 75 percent of the AMC-Jeep-Renault vehicles sold in the New Port Richey area are sold by dealers other than Burruss. Of the three AMC dealers in Pinellas County, Burruss has consistently sold the fewest vehicles. Since the population has been greater in the service area of the other two AMC dealers in Pinellas County, this lower rate would be expected. However, Burruss sales have not kept pace with the population growth in the New Port Richey-West Pasco area. In 1977 AMC automobiles accounted for 1.8 percent of domestic new car sales in this Central Florida district, 2.6 percent of the sales in the Tarpon Springs area, and 1.7 percent of the sales in the New Port Richey area. In 1982 AMC automobiles accounted for 1.4 percent of the district sales, 1.0 percent of the Tarpon Springs area sales, and 0.9 percent of the New Port Richey area sales. In 1977 Jeep automobiles accounted for 14.1 percent of the four-wheel drive vehicle sales in the Central Florida district, 13.5 percent of the sales in the Tarpon Springs area, and 13.8 percent of the sales in the New Port Richey area. In 1982, Renault vehicles accounted for 1.4 percent of the district sales, 1.0 percent of the Tarpon Springs area sales, and 0.5 percent of the New Port Richey area sales. Thus, while AMC penetration in the Tarpon Springs area is comparable to district penetration (although Tarpon Springs penetration seems to be declining), the penetration in the New Port Richey area is well below the district average. Not only has Burruss spent less on advertising than other dealers, but also it has not maintained a 60-day supply of vehicles based on "planning potential." (A minimum estimated number of sales a dealer should make in a year.) Based on the planning potential for the combined Tarpon Springs and New Port Richey areas, Burruss should stock 14 AMC, 10 Jeep, and 36 Renault vehicles. As of January 31, 1982, Burruss had in stock 8 AMC, 3 Jeep and 17 Renault vehicles. AMC consistently allots Burruss more vehicles than it purchases. AMC has received more complaints directly from customers in the West Pasco service area about the products they purchased, but not necessarily from Burruss, than from other service areas in the same district. This is indicative that insufficient attention is paid to providing warranty services in the area by the franchised dealer. That a separate market area in Pasco County exists and has been recognized by several other automobile manufacturers was admitted by Herman Burruss, the principal stockholder of Burruss Motor Company, who was the chief operations officer for Burruss for some 45 years until approximately five years ago when he turned the job over to his son and retreated into semi retirement.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The evidence showed that the dealership proposed by Petitioners would sell the same line and make of motorcycles as those sold by Respondent. The proposed dealership would also compete in the Respondent’s territory since it would be located in the same county as Respondent and would be within 20 miles of Respondent. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of the proposed dealership. On September 18, 2007, a Notice of Hearing setting the date, time and location of final hearing was issued in this case. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to the last known, valid addresses of the Petitioners, which were also the addresses provided in Petitioners’ Notice of Publication. Neither Notice of Hearing was returned. This cause came on for hearing as noticed. After waiting more than an hour, the Petitioners failed to appear to prosecute their claim. There has been no communication from the Petitioners before, during, or since the hearing to indicate that they would not be attending the final hearing. Because of Petitioners’ failure to appear, there was no evidence to demonstrate that Petitioners are entitled to a franchise motor vehicle dealership in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Absent such evidence, the establishment of the proposed dealership should be denied.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles denying the establishment of Petitioners’ proposed franchise. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 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 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Judson M. Chapman, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 David Wray Wholesale Nation Automotive, Inc. 319 Miracle Strip Parkway Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Mei Zhou SunL Group, Inc. 8551 Esters Boulevard Irvine, Texas 75063 Curtis Mitchell Coastal Powersports 12 Eglin Parkway Southeast Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548
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
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether an application for motor vehicle dealer licenses filed by SunL Group, Inc., and Auto Stop, Inc., d/b/a Motorsports Depot, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that Scooter Depot has a franchise agreement to sell or service Chunl Motorcycle Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (CHUA) motor vehicles, a line-make to be sold by Motorsports Depot. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that Scooter Depot has a franchise agreement to sell or service Shanghai Meitan Motorcycle Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (MEIT) motor vehicles, a line-make to be sold by Motorsports Depot. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Scooter Depot dealership is physically located so as to meet the statutory requirements for standing to protest the establishment of the new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships.
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 dismissing the protests filed by Mobility Tech, Inc., d/b/a Charlie's Scooter Depot, in these cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2009, 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 5th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Mei Zhou SunL Group, Inc. 8551 Ester Boulevard Irving, Texas 75063 Carlos Urbizu Mobility Tech, Inc., d/b/a Charlie’s Scooter Depot 5720 North Florida Avenue, Unit 2 Tampa, Florida 33604 Robert L. Sardegna Auto Shop, Inc., d/b/a Motorsports Depot 17630 US 41 North Lutz, Florida 33549 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' notice of intent to establish a supplemental motor vehicle dealership was effective to commence the statutory protest period, which must be completed as a necessary condition of licensure.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated September 13, 2002, Petitioner BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") notified Respondent Department Of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the "Department") that Petitioner Pompano Imports, Inc., d/b/a Vista Motors ("Vista"), intended to relocate its dealership, where BMW cars and light trucks were being sold and serviced, from 700 North Federal Highway in Pompano Beach ("Source Site") to 4401 West Sample Road in Coconut Creek ("Target Site").1 BMW NA and Vista took the position that, pursuant to Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes,2 the proposed reopening of the "relocatee-dealership"3 at the Target Site should not be considered subject to competing dealers' administrative protests. Pursuant to Section 320.642(1)(d), Florida Statutes, the Department caused BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to be published in the September 27, 2002, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. On September 27, 2002, also in accordance with Section 320.642(1)(d), the Department mailed copies of BMW NA's September 13, 2002, notice of relocation to all existing BMW passenger car dealers and BMW light truck dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. Within two weeks, however, the Department mailed letters to these same dealers explaining that the proposed reopening of Vista's relocatee- dealership at the Target Site would not be a "protestable" event after all. A little more than seven months later, by letter dated May 5, 2003, BMW NA notified the Department that Vista planned to establish an additional or "supplemental" dealership for selling and servicing BMW cars and light trucks at 744 North Federal Highway in Pompano Beach (the "Supplemental Site"), a parcel which is contiguous to the Source Site where the relocatee-dealership then remained open for business, the previously announced relocation having not yet taken place. As required by statute, the Department not only caused a notice to be published in the May 16, 2003, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly regarding this putative supplemental dealership, but also it mailed copies of BMW NA's May 5, 2003, notice to all existing BMW passenger car dealers and BMW light truck dealers in Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. No dealer timely protested Vista's intended opening of a supplemental dealership at the Supplemental Site. Generally speaking, after the Department has received notice from a licensee or applicant regarding the latter's intent either to establish an additional dealership or to relocate an existing dealership, and after such notice has been duly published in accordance with Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, the Department routinely enters a final order authorizing the issuance of a license for the proposed additional or relocated dealership upon the applicant's satisfaction of all other requirements for licensure, unless a timely protest is filed, in which case final agency action must be taken pursuant to Chapter 120.4 In this case, however, by letter dated July 10, 2003, the Department informed BMW NA and Vista of its decision that because the putative relocatee- dealership was still doing business at the Source Site, and because the Supplemental Site was immediately adjacent to the Source Site, the proposed supplemental dealership would be deemed an "expansion" of the putative relocatee-dealership, as opposed to an "additional" dealership. Based on this determination, the Department concluded in its July 10, 2003, correspondence that: (1) a license would not be issued for the expansion of Vista's dealership into the Supplemental Site; (2) the opening of the dealership that Vista proposed to establish at the Target Site, which would come into being as the putative relocatee-dealership expanded, could not be considered exempt from protest, for no "relocation" would be occurring; and (3) notice and an opportunity to protest would need to be provided with respect to the Target Site before a license for an additional dealership at that location could be issued. BMW NA and Vista each requested a hearing to challenge the Department's findings and conclusions, initiating, respectively, DOAH Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970. These cases were subsequently consolidated. On September 30, 2003, before the final hearing in the consolidated proceeding, the Department, BMW NA, and Vista entered into a settlement agreement. Upon being advised of the settlement, the presiding administrative law judge (not the undersigned) closed DOAH's files in Case Nos. 03-2969 and 03-2970 and relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. Pursuant to the referenced settlement agreement, the Department, on October 7, 2003, approved Vista's application to relocate its BMW passenger car and BMW light truck dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site, as had been proposed in the September 13, 2002, notice of relocation. Vista's motor vehicle dealer license was, accordingly, modified to permit Vista to conduct dealership activities with regard to BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Target Site. This modification effectively "de-licensed" Vista as a BMW dealer at the Source Site. On October 7, 2003, Vista stopped selling and servicing BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Source Site. (Vista continued to operate a preexisting, separately licensed Volkswagen dealership at the Source Site.) On October 8, 2003, Vista started selling and servicing BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks at the Target Site. (Vista continued to operate a preexisting, separately licensed MINI dealership at the Target Site.) Also pursuant to the settlement agreement referenced above, the Department notified BMW NA and Vista, by letter dated October 15, 2003, of the following relevant findings:5 Pursuant to Rule 15C-7.004(3)(d)2, Florida Administrative Code, the Department views [Vista's] proposed additional motor vehicle BMW dealership . . . at [the Supplemental Site] as an expansion of Vista Motors' existing licensed BMW dealership at [the Source Site.] Therefore, the [proposed project at the Supplemental Site] . . . , [being] in fact merely an expansion of Vista Motors' existing location [i.e. the Source Site], [is] not [an additional BMW dealership] subject to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. [T]hus BMW is essentially intending to remain open at its existing . . . location [meaning, apparently, the Source Site] at the same time it is relocating to [the Target Site]. Based on the foregoing findings, the Department concluded as follows:6 [The exemption from protest afforded under Section 320.642(5), Florida Statutes, cannot apply where the putative relocatee- dealership of] Vista Motors . . . remain[s] open at the [Source Site] as a franchise BMW dealer . . . [while] at the same time [Vista] move[s] [the putative relocatee- dealership] to the [Target Site]. Therefore, Vista may not be issued a license as a franchise BMW dealer at the [Supplemental Site], until it relocates to [the Target Site] and thereafter publishes a new notification of an additional dealership for the [Supplemental Site], and those proceedings, if any, are concluded in favor of the additional dealership. (Emphasis added.) At first blush, the October 15, 2003, notice seems curiously oblivious to the fact that the Department had already approved Vista's relocation to the Target Site and modified Vista's license accordingly. Indeed, there appears to be some tension between the "facts" found in the notice and the actual facts on the ground. For example, while the notice refers to Vista's existing licensed BMW dealership at the Source Site, the undisputed fact is that Vista was not licensed to operate a BMW dealership at the Source Site as of October 7, 2003. Thus, if the Department believed, as a literal reading of the notice suggests, that Vista's intent on October 15, 2003, was to expand an existing BMW dealership at the Source Site, then it would be reasonable to wonder why the Department did not conclude that Vista was operating at the Source Site without a license. Conclusion 1 seems likewise to be at odds with what had transpired in fact. On the one hand, the Department concludes that Vista has remained open at the Source Site, which it cannot do and also claim, as it had done, the Section 320.642(5) exemption. Yet, on the other hand, the Department had, in fact, previously authorized Vista to operate a BMW dealership at the Target Site under the auspices of the very exemption that the October 15, 2003, notice concludes cannot apply because Vista is still open (according to the "findings") at the Source Site. To properly understand the October 15, 2003, notice, it is necessary to focus on the word "thereafter" in Conclusion 2(b). Clearly, the timing of the "new notification" is critical. The Department is saying that, where a dealer has previously given notice of its intent to relocate an existing dealership, taking advantage of Section 320.642(5) to exempt the reopening of such relocatee-dealership at the target site, if the dealer now wants to establish a "supplemental" dealership at the source site7 (hereafter, such a dealership will be called a "backfill dealership"8) then the relocatee-dealership must truly be relocated before effective notice of the proposed backfill dealership may be published. Under this policy,9 hereafter called the "Exempt Relocation/Backfill Policy," it is appropriate for the Department, in determining retrospectively10 whether the notice of the proposed "supplemental" dealership was effective, to look at the facts as of the date of the notice. In this case, the subject notice was given to the Department on May 5, 2003, and published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 16, 2003. With these points in mind, it becomes apparent that the "findings" in the October 15, 2003, notice, which seem inconsistent with the facts on the ground, actually refer to the state of affairs in May 2003. Once the findings in the October 15, 2003, notice are understood as being retrospective in nature, the notice begins to make sense. What the Department found was that Vista had not relocated its BMW dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site as of May 5, 2003, when notice of the proposed backfill dealership was furnished to the Department. As a result, because Vista had previously sought the protection of Section 320.642(5) for the reopening of its relocatee-dealership, the May 5, 2003, notice respecting the backfill dealership was premature and ineffective. To remedy the problem of premature notice, the Department would afford Vista a second chance to give effective notice in the proper sequence, after the relocation of its BMW dealership from the Source Site to the Target Site had taken place.11 It is important to note that, in the October 15, 2003, notice, the Department neither needed to make nor made a finding, one way or the other, as to whether Vista's putative relocatee-dealership has, in fact, moved from the Source Site to the Target Site.12 Thus, such a determination should not be made in and through this proceeding, but, rather, by the Department (preliminarily) either (a) at the time BMW NA gives notice to the Department, again, of the proposed backfill dealership at Supplemental Site or (b) after publication of such notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly but before a license for the proposed backfill dealership is issued or denied.13 It is also not necessary, and indeed would be inappropriate, to determine in this case what action, if any, the Department should take if it subsequently determines that Vista's putative relocatee- dealership has not in fact relocated from the Source Site to the Target Site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order providing that Vista shall be issued a license to operate a BMW dealership at 744 North Federal Highway only if: (a) prior to the time notice is given to the Department pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, regarding the proposed dealership, Vista has actually relocated the dealership that existed at 700 North Federal Highway to 4401 West Sample Road in Coconut Creek; any protest filed against the proposed dealership is resolved in Petitioners' favor; and (c) all other legal requirements for licensure are met. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2004.
The Issue Whether the application of Peace Industry Group (Peace) and Bayside Auto Sales, Inc. (Bayside) to establish an additional franchised dealership for the sale of Astronautical Bashan motorcycles to be located at Bayside Auto Sales, 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Bay County, Florida, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Peace is a licensed distributor of motor vehicles in Florida and is authorized to sell motor vehicles to its dealers in Florida. Petitioner Bayside is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and is located at 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Respondent Moto is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and an existing Astronautical Bashan dealer located at 12202 Hutchison Blvd Suite 72, Panama City Beach, Florida. Currently, Moto sells the product line of Peace, including the Astronautical Bashan product line. Additionally, Moto has a franchise agreement with Peace. The agreement establishes a franchise territory with a 25-mile radius around Moto’s location. Petitioner Peace proposes to establish Bayside as a dealership for the sale of Astronautical Bashan motorcycles. The proposed dealership would be within six miles of Moto’s dealership. The two dealerships are located in Bay County and are separated by the Hathaway Bridge. Both draw customers from Bay County, with at least 20 percent of Moto’s customers located within 20 miles of Moto’s location. There was no consumer data or analysis of sales in the motorcycle industry offered into evidence. However, Moto’s franchise agreement with Peace establishes a market area of at least a 25-mile radius from Moto’s location. Bayside clearly is located within Moto’s market area. There was no evidence which demonstrated Peace’s market share in the motorcycle market. There was no evidence presented analyzing the motorcycle market in the Panama City area. Likewise, there was no evidence presented regarding anticipated growth in the market area. This type of evidence is generally presented by the distributor or manufacturer of the product. As indicated, Peace did not appear at the hearing. Given this lack of evidence, the market share for Peace or Astronautical Bashan motorcycles cannot be established. Moreover, a determination that the establishment of a second dealership in the Panama City territory is warranted must be based on the economic and marketing conditions pertinent to dealers competing in the territory. Given this lack of evidence, Petitioners failed to establish that Peace was underrepresented in the Panama City/Bay county area. Since there is no evidence to support the establishment of a second dealership, Petitioners’ application to establish such a dealership should be denied.
Recommendation Based upon 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 Peace's dealership at Bayside, 1301 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Larry Bradberry Bayside Auto Sales, Inc. 1301 Harrison Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Wayne Wooten Moto Import Distributors, LLC 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 Lily Ji Peace Industry Group, Inc. 6600-B Jimmy Carter Boulevard Norcross, Georgia 30071 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether the proposed dealership should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On August 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 31, a Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of Less than 300,000 Population was published. The notice provided that Vento North America, LLC, intended to allow the establishment of H. Long Investments Corp. d/b/a Tropical Scooters of Vero, as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Qianjaing Motorcycle Group Corp. (QINJ) at 4901 North U.S. Highway 1, Unit J, Vero Beach (Indian River County), Florida. On August 12, 2008, the Respondent timely filed a protest of the establishment of the Petitioner's dealership and represented that 25 percent of its retail sales were within a 20-mile straight line distance of the proposed dealership during any 12-month period out of the 36-month period immediately preceding the filing of the protest. Based upon the Petitioner's evidence, its proposed dealership location is not less than 21.51 miles from the Respondent's dealership. The Respondent did not establish that any of its sales are within 20 miles of the proposed dealership. The Respondent did not establish that it currently markets any motorcycle to be sold by the proposed dealership. More specifically, the Respondent did not offer evidence that it has an agreement for the same line-make vehicle to be sold by the proposed dealer. Vento North America, the distributor of the motorcycle brand/model to be sold at the proposed dealership, did not attend the hearing. Notice of the formal hearing was provided to all parties of record at their addresses of record. The Respondent did not timely contest the location, date, or time for the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by the Respondent and approving the dealership proposed by this Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 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 16th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Jim Buchheit Best Buy Vehicles, Inc. 3525 South US Highway 1 Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Heidi S. Long H. Long Investments, Corp. Tropical Scooters of Vero 4901 North US highway 1, Unit J Vero Beach, Florida 32967 Alma Gonzalez Vento North America 6190 Cornerstone Court E, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92121
The Issue Whether Respondent, Maserati North America, Inc.’s ("MNA"), proposed 2017 Commercial Policy Program ("2017 Program") is a modification of the franchise agreement between MNA and Petitioner, New Country Motor Cars of Palm Beach, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Palm Beach ("Palm Beach"), or Petitioner Recovery Racing, LLC, d/b/a Maserati of Ft. Lauderdale ("Fort Lauderdale"); and, if so, whether it is fair and not prohibited by section 320.641(3), Florida Statutes (2016). Whether MNA’s proposed modifications to the Existing Franchise Agreements with Petitioners are fair and not prohibited under section 320.641(3).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the Pre-hearing Stipulation of the parties and the record as a whole, the following relevant and material Findings of Fact are made2/:
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: (1) DISMISSING Petitioners’ claims regarding MNA’s 2017 Commercial Policy Bonus Program; and (2) GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, Petitioners’ claims regarding modifications in the Proposed New Agreement, as set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to motor vehicle dealerships that are proposed to be located in Orange County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Notices of Publication, Respondent's protest letters which were forwarded to DOAH, and the testimony presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is an existing franchised dealer for motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Company, Ltd. Petitioners have proposed the establishment of new dealerships to sell the same line-make of motorcycles as those sold by Respondent. Respondent's dealership is located at 3838 John Young Parkway, Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Petitioners' dealerships are proposed to be located in Orange County, Florida, at: 4535 34th Street, Orlando, Florida (Case No. 09-3489); and 2650 West Fairbanks Avenue, Winter Park, Florida (Case Nos. 09-3499 and 09-4750). The proposed dealerships are within a 12.5-mile radius of Respondent's dealership. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of the proposed dealerships. No evidence was presented showing that Respondent was "not providing adequate representation" of the same line-make vehicles in the community or territory.
Recommendation Based upon 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 dealerships for Case Nos. 09-3489, 09-3499, and 09-4750. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Jude A. Mitchell Jude's Cycle Service Post Office Box 585574 Orlando, Florida 32858 Beverly Fox Red Streak Scooters, LLC 427 Doughty Boulevard Inwood, New York 11096 Randy Lazarus Scooter City USA, LLC 4535 34th Street Orlando, Florida 32811 Bobbette Lynott Classic Motorcycles and Sidecars, Inc. Post Office Box 969 Preston, Washington 98050 Lou Ronka Scooter City USA, LLC 2650 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789
