The Issue Whether J.S. Imports, Inc. should be granted a new point Mazda dealership at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida, pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is a manufacturer of automobiles and trucks which are distributed and sold through a network of dealerships. Under Florida law Mazda is denoted a "licensee." On January 5, 1996, a notice of publication for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealer was published which announced Mazda intends to allow the establishment of J.S. Imports, Inc., as a dealership for the sale of Mazda vehicles at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach (Palm Beach County), Florida 33415. The notice further provided, in pertinent part: Mazda Motor of America, Inc., intends to engage in business with J. S. Imports, Inc., as a dealership on or after February 1, 1996. The name and address of the dealer-operator and principal investor of J. S. Imports, Inc., is: John Staluppi, Jr., 42 Davidson Lane East, West Islip, New York 11795. * * * Dealerships of the same line-make which can establish standing to protest the establishment of the new point may do so by filing a written petition or complaint with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Thereafter, on February 1, 1996, Respondents, Stewart Mazda, Delray Mazda, and Jupiter Dodge Mazda, filed a petition or complaint challenging the proposed new point dealer. Respondents are the existing Mazda dealerships located within Palm Beach County. There are no other same line-make motor vehicle dealerships which are physically located so as to meet or satisfy the requirements of Section 320.642(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, all dealers with the potential for standing have participated in this proceeding. Palm Beach County is a county with more than 300,000 population. Respondent, Stewart Mazda, is located at 2001 South Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is within 12.5 miles of the proposed location for the new point site. In fact, the Stewart dealership is within five miles of the proposed new point. Respondent, Delray Mazda, is not located within 12.5 miles of the proposed location. Nevertheless, Delray Mazda established that during any 12 month period of the 36 month period preceding the filing of the licensee's application for the proposed dealer Delray Mazda made 25% of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were within a radius of 12.5 miles of the proposed site. Respondent, Jupiter Dodge Mazda, is not within 12.5 miles of the location for the proposed new dealership yet it also met the sales standard described in paragraph 7. The proposed new motor vehicle dealer, J.S. Imports, Inc., is owned by John Staluppi, Jr., the son of John Staluppi. No other person or entity owns more than a 10% interest in JSI. It is proposed that J.S. Imports, Inc. will be located at 631 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Such real property is part of an automobile mall or auto mall (a cluster of automobile dealerships) which is owned or controlled by John Staluppi. The new Mazda vehicle sales facility would be located at 631 South Military Trail; however, the service facility for the dealership would be located elsewhere within a shared space at 561 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Both parcels are owned or controlled by John Staluppi. Both parcels are part of the same auto mall. As part of its documentation to establish the dealership, J.S. Imports, Inc. (JSI) submitted an unsigned lease for the subject property between John Staluppi and the proposed dealer. On or about October 25, 1996, just prior to this case going to hearing, John Staluppi entered into an agreement to sell the assets of the automobile dealerships located within the auto mall. He also agreed to lease the real estate upon which they are located. The lease included the sites for the new Mazda point as well as the service location. Without going into details of the agreement which are not material to the issues of this case, and without listing all of the corporate entities involved in the transaction, the principals in this new agreement were John Staluppi and Terry Taylor. Material to this case, however, is the covenant between Mr. Taylor and John Staluppi, Jr. Those parties reached an agreement to sublease the real estate at 631 South Military Trail and the service department at 561 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach. Such agreement to sublease was also executed October 25, 1996. Based upon the foregoing, as of October 25, 1996, the proposed site for the Mazda new point dealer continued to be 631 South Military Trail with service work to be at 561. These sites are identical to the information submitted by the applicant to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. This information was also disclosed to Respondents during discovery of the case, prior to the prehearing stipulation. Subsequently, the transaction between Mr. Taylor and John Staluppi was abandoned. Mr. Taylor’s deposit on the transaction was refunded. Apparently, these parties no longer intend to abide by the terms of the asset purchase agreement. JSI does not own the proposed site. If approved, JSI will lease the property from John Staluppi or entities he owns or controls. As of the time of hearing, JSI did not have a signed lease for the subject property. Typically, Mazda does not submit applications for new point dealerships without some documentation substantiating control of the proposed site. A proposed dealer would normally either own or control the proposed site. Control of the site may be shown by a lease, an option to purchase or an option to lease. In this instance, Mazda presumed the proposed site would be secured through the efforts of John Staluppi, Jr. on behalf of his company which would lease from his father. Moreover, Mazda believes its agreement with JSI (for the applicant dealer to reimburse it for costs or expenses incurred should the dealership effort fail due to an act or omission of JSI) adequately protected its interests in this regard. As of the dates of filing the application for a new point dealership, the notice of same, and the hearing in this cause, no person or entity, other than John Staluppi, Jr., had a beneficial ownership interest in the proposed dealership. To determine whether an additional same line-make dealer should be approved, the existing network of motor vehicle dealers must be evaluated to determine whether they are providing adequate representation to the community or territory. The applicable statutory criteria do not define "adequate representation" nor the "community or territory." Typically, sales data of past dealership performance is utilized by all parties to establish a community or territory (Comm/Terr) and to evaluate the dealers' effectiveness. In this case how the Comm/Terr should be defined is disputed by the parties. Although entitled to weight in the consideration of how the Comm/Terr should be defined, the dealer agreements with the three existing dealers (Respondents) do not assign an area by geographical boundaries. Respondents believe the Comm/Terr, based upon their interpretation of their agreements, should be defined as Palm Beach County as a whole. In contrast, Mazda studies have defined the market for these dealers in different ways; however, it believes the Comm/Terr should be Palm Beach County excluding the primary market area (PMA) ascribed to Jupiter Dodge Mazda. In making this determination, Mazda constructed the PMAs for the existing dealers as well as the new point (or open point) which has been designated as the Staluppi PMA. Within the Staluppi PMA it is presumed that dealer would have a competitive advantage in the market. Similarly, within the Stewart PMA that dealer would have the competitive edge due to customer preference and convenience. The actual shopping patterns of Mazda customers was also assessed. In this case, the three dealers are located in three distinct geographical areas: one toward the northern boundary of the county at Jupiter; one to the south at Delray; and one in the eastern central portion at downtown West Palm Beach. The proposed Staluppi/JSI site is west of the Stewart location. Based upon the actual shopping patterns the majority of the sales by these three existing dealers are made to customers in the same county. Because few of Mazda's customers come from adjacent counties, the largest area which should be used to define the Comm/Terr is the county itself. Within Palm Beach County there are also identifiable plots associated with the three dealers which show that while Stewart and Delray are connected to the JSI site (via established purchasing patterns), Jupiter is not. For this reason, Mazda's expert in rendering his initial opinions regarding this matter excluded Jupiter from the Comm/Terr. This approach has been deemed persuasive. Currently, there are three clusters of automobile and truck dealerships within the Palm Beach Comm/Terr: Delray, where Mazda is now located; Military Trail/Okeechobee Boulevard, where Mazda wants to be located; and North Lake Boulevard. Eighty percent of the customers who shop for new cars, regardless of brand, go to one of the three clusters. Mazda is not represented in two of these popular shopping venues. Mazda and Dodge are the only brands offered in Jupiter. Less than 5% of the customers from the remainder of Palm Beach County (away from the Jupiter PMA) went to Jupiter to purchase a new vehicle. To determine a reasonable expected market penetration standard, it is appropriate to exclude certain factors, such as the consumer preferences for certain types of vehicles (independent of brand) over which the dealers have no control. Market penetration is the traditional standard used to measure adequacy of representation because it reflects the competitive efforts of the competing dealers. Registration data of all brands is used to comprise a single indicator called market share, which is an objective and accurate measure of market activity. Registration data reflects actual consumer purchases. Actual registrations account for demographic characteristics, including age, income, education, size-class preferences, and product popularity. Market penetration for any area is computed utilizing all registrations to addresses in the area, regardless of the location of the selling dealer. After registration data is compiled, the performance of the Comm/Terr can be compared to another market area (allowing for differences in segment popularity). In this case, Mazda compared the Palm Beach Comm/Terr to the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale market. Typically, manufacturers and companies which compile data regarding vehicle sales classify new vehicle sales into segments. These segments list models which are comparable to one another and are, presumably, competing for the same customer. Mazda classifies its vehicles into nine segments. Although it could be argued Mazda is ineffective against Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, part of that theoretical ineffectiveness is due to the lack or absence of entries from Mazda into markets or segments flooded by those make vehicles. For example, Mazda does not have a vehicle to compete with a Chevrolet Suburban. Nevertheless, on a segment-by-segment basis where Mazda competes with an entry comparable to the other line-makes (in size and class) Mazda's effectiveness can be computed and demonstrated. By measuring Mazda's penetration in each segment achieved in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area, applied to the industry data available in each segment in the Staluppi/JSI PMA, an appropriate standard is established for what could be expected if the latter were receiving adequate representation. Similarly, by applying the penetration rate to the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole it is possible to establish what could be expected if the Comm/Terr were receiving adequate representation. By considering the segment analysis the process takes into account differences in consumer preferences between markets as to the popularity of segments, and thereby gives a more accurate measure of what Mazda's reasonably expected market penetration should be. Utilizing this segment analysis, the reasonably expected 1995 Mazda market share in the Staluppi/JSI PMA was 5.97%. The actual penetration for Mazda in this PMA was 3.81%. Similarly, in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr in 1995, Mazda's reasonably expected share in the segments was 6.21%. The actual penetration for Mazda in the Comm/Terr was 4.49%. Alternatively, adding Jupiter to the Palm Beach Comm/Terr, Mazda's reasonably expected market share in 1995 was 6.19%. The actual penetration in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr (adding Jupiter) was 4.65%. Thus, in each analysis Mazda performance fell short of its reasonably expected penetration. With a properly constructed dealer network, containing the appropriate number of dealerships in proper locations, it is reasonable to expect the dealer network in Palm Beach County to perform as well as the dealer network in Miami/Fort Lauderdale after adjusting for the local consumer patterns that make Palm Beach different from the other area. Net shortfall is the number of additional Mazdas that would have to be registered in order to equal the expected level based on average performance across an area. On the basis of the net shortfall in units, or units required to be registered in order to bring the Staluppi/JSI PMA up to the expected performance, the 1995 shortfall was 246 units. In reviewing the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole over the three year period from 1993 to 1995, the efficiency has changed from 70.1% to 72.4%. For the Comm/Terr plus Jupiter, the efficiency has changed from 68.6% to 75.2% during the three years immediately following the insertion of Jupiter Dodge Mazda. Mazda was not receiving adequate representation from the standpoint of not achieving reasonably expected market share. That conclusion is the same whether the area under review is the Staluppi/JSI PMA, the larger Palm Beach Comm/Terr, or the Palm Beach Comm/Terr with Jupiter included. Increases in performance in 1996 (after the existing dealers knew an additional dealer was being sought for the Palm Beach Comm/Terr) while commendable do not negate the historical pattern of providing inadequate representation. The growth of population and households in Palm Beach County has been predominately to the west and central portions of the county and throughout the Delray Beach area. The proposed Staluppi/JSI PMA has also experienced rapid growth in households and population which is expected to continue. Among Mazda buyers, 28.5% thought that the location of the dealer was extremely important; 35.1% thought it was very important; 22.8% thought it was somewhat important; whereas only 8.7% thought it was not important, and 4.9% not important at all. The Military Trail auto mall into which JSI proposes to open the additional Mazda dealership, now contains Toyota, Jeep Eagle, Chrysler Plymouth, Nissan, Infiniti, Kia, GMC, Saturn, Ford and Isuzu. Other brands considered part of this cluster are on Okeechobee Boulevard. They are VW, Hyundai, Acura, Subaru, Volvo, Oldsmobile, Buick, Audi, BMW, Lexis, Lincoln Mercury, Chevrolet, Dodge, Mitsubishi and Mercedes Benz. Mazda would be required to have 3.2 dealerships in order to have the same share of the franchises in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as it has in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. Because Jupiter Dodge Mazda does not serve the Palm Beach Comm/Terr in a meaningful way, the Comm/Terr has two Mazda dealerships, and needs at least one more dealership to have a reasonable opportunity to receive adequate interbrand competition and gain expected market share. The likely cause of the current inadequacy of performance for the Palm Beach Comm/Terr is insufficient dealer count and poor dealer location. Without a dealer in the Staluppi/JSI PMA, consumers average 9.9 miles from the nearest Mazda dealer, which is higher than the major competitors located in the Staluppi/JSI PMA. With the addition of a Mazda dealer in the Staluppi/JSI PMA customers will be 7.2 miles, on average, to the nearest Mazda dealer a distance which should be more competitive with other brands such as Ford (3.9 miles), Chevrolet (4.7 miles), Nissan (7.2 miles), and Toyota (7.2 miles). Optimal location analysis also demonstrates that the proposed location would maximize customer convenience. If the J. S. Imports dealership is allowed to "float" in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr, while the other dealer locations are fixed, the location which would maximize customer convenience is near the proposed site. The proposed location is near the optimal location, and in the midst of a cluster of dealerships where approximately 30% of the sales of all Palm Beach County dealers are made. The proposed site is good in terms of solving the customer convenience problem in the area, and providing Mazda a presence in the cluster where many sales are made. The addition of a dealership will likely benefit consumers and the public interest. It will provide the growing population of the Staluppi/JSI PMA with a more convenient place to shop for Mazdas and more convenient Mazda service. It will take Mazda to a growing cluster of dealerships allowing customers a one stop opportunity to comparison shop Mazda and its competitors. Moreover, with increased interbrand and intrabrand competition Mazda and the existing dealers should be able to improve sales penetration and take advantage of the available market for Mazda products. Therefore, because of the large untapped opportunity for Mazda in the Palm Beach Comm/Terr as a whole, in the Comm/Terr plus Jupiter, and in the "identifiable plot" known as the Staluppi/JSI PMA, the addition of a new dealer should not cause a decrease in the existing Mazda dealers' sales over the long term. The addition should have a positive impact upon the overall sales opportunities for all the Mazda dealers. If you compute the total lost opportunity for sales in this market (941 units) and allocate a portion of sales to the Staluppi/JSI PMA (555), the remainder would be available to the existing dealers of the Comm/Terr. This remainder of the lost opportunity, (467 units utilizing the average penetration profile; 386 using the Jupiter profile), would be available for all Palm Beach Mazda dealers. Therefore, the proposed addition of a dealership can take place without taking any sales from existing Mazda dealers. The existing dealers should increase their sales because a large number of customers are now shopping in the Northlake and Okeechobee/Military Trail clusters, and could not previously consider Mazda conveniently because of the lack of a dealer. Having a dealer in the Okeechobee/Military Trail cluster should stimulate interest in Mazdas. All existing dealers have made substantial financial investments to perform their obligations under their dealers' agreements. In Stewart's case, the total investment is close to $5,000,000. Stewart's real estate and building are valued at approximately $3,000,000. Jupiter Dodge Mazda has about $1,000,000 invested in its dealership. Delray Mazda has approximately $3,500,000 invested in its dealership. All three existing dealerships should benefit from an increased Mazda presence in the market place. The reasonably expected market penetration for Mazda should improve with an additional dealership at the Staluppi auto mall. Mazda has not denied its existing dealers an opportunity for reasonable growth, expansion or relocation. In fact, Mazda urged Stewart to establish the dealership at the proposed location. Only when efforts with Stewart failed did Mazda go outside the existing dealers for an operator for the additional point. Mazda has not attempted to coerce the existing dealers into consenting to the additional dealership. In reaching this conclusion the single incident complained of by one existing dealer (that Mazda withdrew some advertising support) has been considered but is not persuasive that Mazda has acted improperly in its efforts to establish the new point. The distance travel time, considering traffic patterns and accessibility, between the proposed site and its nearest same line-make dealer (Stewart) is approximately ten minutes. While geographically closer than other dealers of same line-make vehicles, traffic and accessibility put the proposed site and Stewart at a reasonable distance. No evidence in this case supports a conclusion that consumers could have the same benefits offered by the proposed dealership from other changes. No evidence suggests the existing dealers are not in compliance with their dealer agreements. Intrabrand and interbrand competition should improve with the establishment of the new point. Service and sales facilities will be more convenient to customers. All existing dealers make sales into the area of the proposed site. With anticipated population growth and market availability, any sales lost to the new point should be offset by Mazda’s increased market presence, improved market penetration, and greater overall sales for all dealerships.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway Safety enter a final order approving the new point dealership sought by Mazda Motor of America on behalf of J.S. Imports, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James D. Adams, Esquire Adams & Quinton 7300 West Camino Real Camino Real Centre Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Douglas E. Thompson Post Office Box 16480 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Dean J. Rosenbach Lewis, Vegosen, Rosenbach & Silber, P.A. Post Office Box 4388 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4388 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue 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
The Issue Whether the application of Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors and PC Scooter and Cycle, L.L.C., to establish an additional franchised dealership for the sale of Zhejiang Summit Huawin Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (POPC) motorcycles to be located at 3401 East Business Highway 98, Panama City, Bay County, Florida 32401, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and an existing POPC dealer located at 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72, Panama City Beach, Florida 32407. There was no evidence which demonstrated Petitioners’ 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, Petitioners did not appear at the hearing. Given this lack of evidence, the market share for Petitioners’ motorcycles cannot be established. Mr. Wooten, Respondent’s CEO, established that Petitioners’ proposed location is within 25 miles of Respondent’s current location. Respondent has the ability to adequately serve the needs of the population of Bay County, including Panama City and Panama City Beach through its sales and service of the POPC motorcycles. In the current economy, the entry of Petitioners into the POPC marketplace would have a significant negative financial impact on Respondent’s ability to maintain its sales, service, and customer base. Respondent has expended significant sums on advertising, both in print and online, and could not afford to continue to advertise the POPC line if Petitioners’ application were approved. Respondent already works seven days a week to maintain his market share, and would suffer significant financial losses if Petitioners’ application were approved. Respondent provides low prices for the products it sells and would be forced out of business if Petitioners’ application were approved. Petitioners seek to sell the identical motorcycles sold by Respondent, and the Bay County market is not sufficiently large to support a new entrant. If Petitioners’ application is approved, Respondent will be forced to close its business in Panama City Beach. Respondent is in good standing with the distributors of the products it sells. Respondent’s license with the State of Florida is active and in good standing. There are no barriers to access for customers seeking to purchase the products offered by Respondent. Respondent’s location is centrally located for customers in Bay County, including Panama City and Panama City Beach.
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’ dealership at 3401 East Business Highway 98, Panama City, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 6th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Donald Watts PC Scooter & Cycle, LLC 1903 Brown Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 Dan Vogel Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors 11 Technology Way Steubenville, Ohio 43952 Barry Wayne Wooten Moto Import Distributors, LLC 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 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 32399-0635 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 this cause is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 2010, 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 15 minutes, 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 Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Absent such evidence, the establishment of the proposed dealership should be denied.
Recommendation Based on 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 15th day of April, 2011, 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 15th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Dan Rhoad Ruff and Tuff Electric Vehicles, Inc. 1 Ruff Tuff Drive Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180 Thomas B. Waldrop Electric Cart Company, LLC 5480 US Highway 98 West Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Rachel Miller Hampton Ruff and Tuff, Inc. 230 South West Hollywood Boulevard Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Steve Hurm, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a motor vehicle dealer license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Global Express, LLC. (Global Express), is a limited liability company which has submitted to Respondent an application for a license as a motor vehicle dealer under the fictitious name of Auto Zone Auto Sales (the subject application). Johnny Romero and Rosangela Romero, who are husband and wife, are the members and managers of Global Express. Mr. Romero is also known as Johnny Guillermo Romero Peguero.1 Both Mr. and Mrs. Romero signed the subject application on behalf of Global Express before a notary public on May 4, 2009. The following language is contained above the signature lines: Under penalty of perjury, I do swear or affirm that the information contained in this application is true and correct . . . Part 5 of the application form requires that the “applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director” answer yes or no to certain questions (the Certifications). Each dealership officer is required to answer these questions under penalties of perjury. Relevant to this proceeding, both Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the negative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever had a surety bond cancelled? Relevant to this proceeding, both Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the negative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever been denied or had a dealer license suspended or revoked in Florida or any other jurisdiction? In addition to the foregoing, Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the affirmative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever been a licensed dealer in Florida or any other jurisdiction? Under their affirmative response Mr. and Mrs. Romero inserted information reflecting that they had previously been licensed dealers under the license numbered VI/1018283. Pursuant to application executed by Mr. and Mrs. Romero on January 11, 2007, Respondent issued motor vehicle dealer license numbered VI/1018283 to Pronto Cars Corp. (Pronto). Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license bond was cancelled by its surety, Nova Casualty Company, by notice dated December 18, 2007. Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license was suspended by Respondent by Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint dated March 20, 2008. That case was assigned the following case number by Respondent: DMV-08-479. The Order suspended Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license because Pronto’s surety had cancelled its bond. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Romero ever received a copy of the Emergency Final Order and Administrative Complaint in case DMV-08-479. That conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Pierre-Lys, acting in her capacity as a compliance officer for Respondent, served a copy of the Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint on Mr. Romero on April 16, 2008. Mr. Romero, on behalf of Pronto, signed and submitted an election of rights form dated May 5, 2008, which provided, in relevant part, as follows: “I have read the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter [DMV-08-479] and understand my options.” Immediately before Mr. Romero’s signature is a check in a box indicating that Mr. Romero was exercising the following option: “I have not obtained a surety bond and wish to voluntarily relinquish my motor vehicle license. I have completed and am returning the Voluntary Relinquishment of License form within 21 days from the date of my receipt of this administrative complaint.” On May 23, 2008,2 Respondent issued its Final Order in its case number DMV-08-479, thereby canceling Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer’s license. The Final Order directed Pronto to surrender its license and all dealer and temporary tags in its possession. The Final Order also contained the following: It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint filed herein is DISMISSED and this case is hereby CLOSED. Mr. Romero called Respondent’s compliance officer, Luz Irizarry, on March 6, 2009, told her that he wanted to obtain a motor vehicle dealer license, and asked whether he would have to go to a school for new dealers. Ms. Irizarry referred the inquiry to Ms. Buck, who determined that Mr. Romero would have to attend the school because Pronto had received consumer complaints, Pronto’s surety had cancelled its bond, and Pronto’s license had been suspended and subsequently revoked. On March 9, 2009, Ms. Irizarry informed Mr. Romero of the reasons he would have to go to dealer school, and specifically discussed with him the fact that Pronto’s operations had been suspended. When he signed the Certifications on May 4, 2009, Mr. Romero had actual knowledge that Pronto’s surety bond had been revoked and that Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license had been suspended. Mr. Romero’s contends that he was confused about his answers because he thought he had bought the surety bond for its full term and because he thought the Final Order entered by Respondent dismissed the suspension of his license. Those contentions are rejected. It is clear from his answer pertaining to the license that had been issued to Pronto that Mr. Romero understood as a principal of Pronto he would have to disclose the revocation of Pronto’s surety bond and the suspension of Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license on the subject application. Mr. and Mr. Romero’s Certifications under section 5 of the subject application pertaining to the revocation of a surety bond and the suspension of a motor vehicle dealer license are willful, material misrepresentations of fact. On February 26, 2008, Respondent discovered that Pronto had moved its business location and was doing business at a location that had not been approved by Respondent. On April 1, 2009, Mrs. Romero drove a motor vehicle displaying a “For Sale” sign. The vehicle had a temporary tag on it that had been issued to Pronto. The possession of that temporary tag violated the Final Order entered in Respondent’s case number DMV-08-479, which ordered Pronto to immediately surrender all temporary tags to Respondent. On April 27, 2009, Mrs. Romero displayed, or acquiesced in the display of, another car with a “For Sale” sign on it parked in front of Global Express’s proposed, but unlicensed, location. That car had a temporary tag on it that had been issued to Pronto. The temporary tag was filled out to show the name of another dealer. The possession of that temporary tag violated the Final Order entered in Respondent’s case number DMV-08-479, which ordered Pronto to immediately surrender all temporary tags to Respondent. On April 2, 2009, Mr. Romero had 13 motor vehicles titled in his name. Although he asserts that some of the motor vehicles were bought in conjunction with a taxi service he operated, he admitted that some of these vehicles had been purchased for resale. Mr. Romero acquired a 1966 Ford motor vehicle on May 9, 209, and sold the vehicle on May 21, 2009. Mr. Romero acquired a 1999 Chevrolet motor vehicle on May 18, 2009, and sold the vehicle on May 25, 2009. Mr. Romero acquired another Chevrolet motor vehicle on May 20, 2008, and sold the vehicle on May 31, 2009. Respondent established that during April and May 2009, Mr. Romero engaged in the business of dealing in motor vehicles without a license. On March 30, 2009, Mr. Romero paid Respondent for the registrations of ten motor vehicles with worthless checks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny the subject application. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Longwood, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of motorcycles manufactured by Chunfeng Holding Group Co. Ltd. (CFHG). Respondent also has an existing distribution arrangement with Petitioner CF Moto Powersports, Inc. 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 821 South Highway 17-92, Suite 101, Longwood, Florida 32750. 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 April, 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 this 29th day of April, 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 David Levison Mega Powersports Corp. 390 North Beach Street Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Ivan Escalante CF Moto Powersports 3555 Holly Lane North, No. 30 Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 James Sursely Action Orlando Motorsports 306 West Main Street Apopka, Florida 32712
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 Whether the Petitioners' proposed dealership should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 41, three separate Notices of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population were published. The first notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The second notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. The third notice provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that [Galaxy] intends to allow the establishment of [Treasure Coast] as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie (St. Lucie County) Florida 34952 on or after September 26, 2008. By letter dated October 16, 2008, Respondent filed the following letter of protest with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: In regards to the intent of [Galaxy] to establish a Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group LTD (SHWI) with [Treasure Coast] for the sale of motorcycles at 7320 South U.S. 1, Port St. Lucie, Fl [sic] 34952. This letter represents a written complaint to their application for this dealership, because we already represent said dealership. This letter also represents a complaint on the following conditions: The proposed dealership would be within 20 miles of our dealership, as measured by straight line distance. They are 8.61 miles away per mapquest. The proposed dealership is to be located within the contractual area outlined in our dealer agreement, as we have a 20 mile exclusivity. We have made more than 25% of our retail sales to persons whose registered household addresses are within 20 straight line miles of the proposed dealership during the past 12 month period. We have established three out of four of the conditions exist, so we are submitting this complaint protesting the establishment of the above dealership. By letter dated October 22, 2008, the Department referred this matter to DOAH. The letter of referral provided, in relevant part, as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of section 120.57, Florida Statutes, we are enclosing a Complaint and supporting documents pursuant to 320.642, Florida Statutes, filed by Wendy and Mark Mourning, on behalf of the above Respondent, thus requiring a hearing under the term of this statute. [Respondent] is protesting the establishment of [Treasure Coast] for the line-make Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 7320 South US 1, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952. The protest filed by Respondent was timely. Respondent's dealership is within 8.61 miles of the proposed site. Mr. Mourning verified the driving distance and presented the measured distance as computed by the website Mapquest. Further, the driving time between the two points is less than 30 minutes. Respondent has dealer agreements to sell various lines of motorcycles, including the following: motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI); motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ); and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG). Although Respondent still has a valid dealer agreement as to motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI), Respondent has discontinued the sale of those motorcycles. Mr. Mourning testified that Respondent has no objection to permitting Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI). As to motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ), and motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG), Respondent has served the area for not less than two years and has successfully promoted those two lines of motorcycles within its territory or community. Respondent established that its sales of those motorcycles are within 12.5 miles of the proposed dealership. Respondent adequately represents Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) and Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) in Respondent’s community or territory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order authorizing Treasure Coast to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at Petitioners' proposed dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Mark Mourning and Wendy Mourning WenMark Inc., d/b/a All The Wheel Toys 1540 Northwest Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34994 Michael James Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Guy Young J & F South Florida Investments, Inc. d/b/a Treasure Coast Scooters and Things 7320 South US 1 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32344
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner manufactures and sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles to authorized Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealers. Ulm is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ulm sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 2966 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida 33607. Ferman is a party to Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with Petitioner for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. Ferman sells Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 24314 State Road 54, Lutz, Florida 33559. It is undisputed that Petitioner has had four dealers in the Tampa metro market for a significant number of years. Petitioner's primary competitors also have had four or more dealers in the Tampa metro market. By appointing North Tampa as a successor dealer to Bob Wilson Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Wilson), Petitioner seeks to maintain the status quo of four Chrysler dealers in the Tampa metro market. In April 2008, Petitioner had four dealers in the Tampa metro market that each sold and serviced Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The four dealers were: Ulm, Ferman, Courtesy Chrysler Jeep Dodge, and Wilson. On April 25, 2008, Wilson filed a Chapter 11 petition in United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida (the Bankruptcy Court). At or about the same time, Wilson closed its doors and ceased selling and servicing Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles. The filing of Wilson’s bankruptcy petition precipitated an automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The automatic stay prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson’s franchise and dealer agreements (dealer agreements). But for Wilson’s bankruptcy filing, Petitioner would have sent Wilson a notice of termination when Wilson closed its doors and ceased dealership operations. Wilson’s cessation of business adversely impacted Petitioner. In relevant part, Petitioner lost sales and lacked a necessary fourth dealer to provide service to Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge customers in the Tampa metro market. Petitioner desired to reopen a dealership at or close to the former Wilson location as soon as possible to mitigate or eliminate the economic loss. During the automatic stay, Petitioner was legally precluded from unilaterally appointing a successor dealer to Wilson. Wilson still had valid dealer agreements for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles and, therefore, was still a dealer. During the automatic stay, Wilson attempted to sell its existing dealership assets, including the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealer agreements. Any attempt by Petitioner to appoint a successor dealer or even negotiate with a successor dealer, would have undermined Wilson’s efforts to sell the dealerships and maximize the estate for the benefit of the creditors. A sale of the dealership required the consent of Wilson and Wilson’s largest creditor, Chrysler Financial. Petitioner did everything it could to accelerate a sale. However, Petitioner was not a party to the sale negotiations and had no ability to require or force Wilson to sell the dealership or its assets to any particular party or to do so within any particular time period. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner did anything to intentionally, or inadvertently, delay or manipulate the timing of a sale. On July 30, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay. The motion also sought the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner filed the motion in the Bankruptcy Court in an attempt to hasten the sale negotiations. Petitioner also wanted to be able to terminate the dealer agreements as quickly as possible in the event that a sale was not consummated. The Bankruptcy Court did not initially grant Petitioner's motion. The court wanted to allow time for a sale of the dealership to proceed. During 2008 and early 2009, Wilson continued to negotiate with potential buyers for the dealership. On January 8, 2009, Wilson's motor vehicle dealer license expired. It became apparent to Petitioner that a sale of Wilson’s assets would be unlikely. Petitioner again asked the Bankruptcy Court to grant Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. On February 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Petitioner's motion to lift the stay. However, the order did not terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. On February 16, 2009, within a week of the entry of the order lifting the stay, Petitioner sent Wilson a notice of intent to terminate Wilson’s dealer agreements. Wilson received the notice of termination on February 23, 2009, and the termination became effective on March 10, 2009. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner attempted to manipulate or delay the timing of the termination of Wilson’s dealer agreements. Petitioner began working on establishing a replacement dealership as soon as Wilson’s dealer agreements were terminated. Establishing a replacement dealership is a lengthy process that primarily involves finding a suitable dealer candidate, finding a suitable location and facility, and making sure that the candidate has the necessary capital to start and maintain the dealership. Petitioner talked to several potential candidates to replace the Wilson dealership, including Jerry Ulm, the principal of one of the complaining dealers in these cases. By letter dated June 24, 2009, Mr. Ulm advised Petitioner that he opposed the opening of a successor dealership for anyone else but wanted the successor dealership for himself should Petitioner decide to proceed. Petitioner determined that Petitioner would not be able to locate the successor dealership at the former Wilson facility. Petitioner considered several potential alternative locations for the successor dealership, including property offered by Ferman. Ferman had a vacant site on Fletcher Avenue in Tampa, Florida, which Ferman leased from a third party unrelated to this proceeding. Ferman offered to sublease the property to Petitioner. In a letter to Petitioner's real estate agent dated July 17, 2009, Ferman stated Ferman's understanding that Petitioner intended to use the property to establish a Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge dealership. Petitioner ultimately decided to locate the dealership at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. It is undisputed that this location is less than two miles from the former Wilson location. Before establishing the successor dealership, however, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Department on February 5, 2010 (the letter). The letter requested the Department to confirm that the establishment of the successor dealership would be exempt under Subsection 320.642(5)(a)1. from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3). The letter explained that Wilson had filed bankruptcy and ceased operations and that the bankruptcy had prevented Petitioner from terminating Wilson and appointing a successor dealership. The letter also provided the relevant dates of the bankruptcy, the lifting of the stay, and the termination of Wilson dealer agreements and advised the Department of Petitioner's intent to locate the successor dealership within two miles of Wilson’s former location. The letter asked the Department to confirm that the establishment of a successor dealership would be exempt if it was established within one year of March 10, 2009, when Petitioner terminated the Wilson dealer agreements. By separate e-mails dated February 9 and 12, 2010, the Department twice confirmed that it had consulted with counsel and determined that the establishment of a successor dealership to Wilson in the manner outlined by Petitioner would be exempt. Petitioner relied on this confirmation by the Department before proceeding with the appointment of a successor dealership. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner sent a second letter to the Department, stating Petitioner's intention to appoint North Tampa as the replacement and successor dealer for Wilson (the second letter). In the second letter, Petitioner again asserted its understanding that the establishment of North Tampa was exempt from the relevant statutory requirements for notice and protest. On February 24, 2010, Petitioner also submitted to the Department an application for a motor vehicle dealer license for North Tampa. On March 3, 2010, the Department issued a license to North Tampa for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at 10909 North Florida Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On March 7, 2010, North Tampa opened for business. North Tampa has operated successfully and continuously and employs approximately 30 individuals at the site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the establishment of North Tampa as a successor motor vehicle dealer is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3) pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Gainesville, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of motorcycles manufactured by Shanghai Shenke Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (SHEN). 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 118 Northwest 14th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida 32601. Petitioners' proposed dealership would be located at 1024 South Main Street, Gainesville, Florida 32601. The proposed dealership is within a 20-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 24th day of December, 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 this 24th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Martin Solano Solano Cycle, Inc. 1024 South Main Street, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 Collin Austin Austin Global Enterprise, LLC 118 Northwest 14th Avenue, Suite D Gainesville, Florida 32601 Julie L. Jones, 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
