03-004083 General Motors Corporation And Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc. vs. Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 16, 2005.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners failed to show that Respondents were not providing adequate representation. Recommend that the application to relocate dealership be denied.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND )

13BUDDY FOSTER CHEVROLET, INC., )

18)

19Petitioners, )

21)

22vs. ) Case Nos. 03 - 4083

29) 03 - 4084

33ROGER WHITLEY CHEVROLET, INC., )

38d/b/a UNIVERSITY CHEVROLET 1/ )

43AND GORDON STEWART CHEVROLET, )

48INC., )

50)

51Respondents. )

53_ )

55RECOMMENDED ORDER

57Pursuant to notice, Administrative Law Judge Don W. Davis

66of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) conducted a

75final h earing in t his case on October 25 - 29, in Tallahassee,

89Florida.

90APPEARANCES

91For Petitioner General Motors Corporation:

96Fred J. Lotterhos, Esquire

100Holland and Knight, LLP

10450 North Laura Street, Suite 3900

110Jacksonville, Florida 32202

113For Petitioner Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc :

120Dean Bunch, Esquire

123Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan, LLP

1282282 Killearn Center Boulevard

132Tallahassee, Florida 32309 - 3576

137For Respondent Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.:

143Edwa rd Quinton, Esquire

147Adams, Quinton and Paretti, P.A.

15280 Southwest Eight Street, Suite 2150

158Miami, Florida 33130

161For Respondent Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc.:

167John W. Forehand, Esquire

171Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.

176125 South Gadsden Street, Suite 300

182Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1525

187STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

191The issue in this case is whether Section 320.642(2)(a),

200Florida Statutes, permits the relocation by Petitioner General

208Motors Corporation (GM) of the dealership of Petitioner Buddy

217Foster Chevrolet, Inc. (Foster), from its present location to a

227new proposed location for the sale of certain line - makes of

239Chevrolet vehicles. In order to make that determination, the

248question arises as to whether Respondent Roger Whitley

256Chevrolet, Inc. (University), and Respondent Gordon Stewart

263Chevrolet, Inc. (Stewart), are already providing adequate

270representation for sale of the subject Chevrolet vehicles in the

280community or territory of the proposed Foster relocation point.

289PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

291Respondents Univer sity and Stewart both timely protested

299proposed relocation of the Foster dealership to the state agency

309charged by statute with regulation of such matters, the Florida

319Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department).

327By letters dated October 30 and November 3, 2004, the Department

338forwarded the protests of University and Stewart, respectively,

346to DOAH with the specific directive that an administrative law

356judge determine the propriety of the protest issues within the

366purview of Section 320.642 , Florida Statutes.

372The final hearing was originally set for June 14 - 18, 2004.

384On May 5, 2004, the parties jointly moved for a continuance of

396the final hearing. The final hearing was continued until

405July 19 - 23, 2004. On July 2, 2004, Respondents f iled a second

419motion to continue the final hearing. After consideration, that

428motion was granted and the case was continued until October 25 -

44029, 2004.

442Prior to commencement of the final hearing, University

450purchased the stock of Roger Whitley Chevr olet, Inc., and

460changed the dealership name to University Chevrolet.

467The parties filed an amended pre - hearing stipulation on

477October 22, 2004.

480At the final hearing, GM presented the testimony of the

490following witnesses: Sharif Farhat, Director of Network

497Analysis for North America for Urban Science Applications, Inc.

506(who was accepted as an expert in dealer network analysis);

516James P. Gurley, Zone Manager for GM’s Tampa Zone; and Victor

527David Nelawake, Certified Public Accountant (who presented

534opinion te stimony in the area of dealership accounting).

543Foster presented the testimony of Harry M. Foster,

551dealership owner; and Sharif Farhat, Director of Network

559Analysis for North America for Urban Science Applications, Inc.

568Stewart presented the tes timony of Gordon L. Stewart,

577President of Stewart Management Group; Arthur J. Smith, Vice -

587President and General Manager of Stewart; and Ernest Harry

596Manuel, Jr., Ph.D., President of The Fontana Group, Inc. (who

606was accepted as an expert in economics, stati stics, and local

617retail automobile industry analysis). University also adopted

624the testimony of Manuel.

628Also submitted and received into evidence were the

636transcripts and exhibits of the following depositions: Arthur

644J. Smith, Vice - President and Gen eral Manager of Stewart; Gordon

656Stewart, President of Stewart Management Group; Marvin E.

664Beaupre, Dealer Network Development Regional Manager for the

672Southeast Region for GM; William E.L. Powell, Vice - President of

683Industry Dealer Affairs for GM; Douglas J . Chandler, Assistant

693Marketing Manager for GM; Cynthia E. Ritchie, Area Manager for

703Dealer Network Development for Central and South Florida, Puerto

712Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands for GM; Kevin Scott Brodsky,

723General Manager and Partner of University; Michael Rodger

731Whitley, former Dealer - Operator, General Manager, and President

740of Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.; Vernon Gale Buchanan, Owner of

750University; and Dennis Bruce Slater, Corporate Controller for

758Buchanan Automotive Group and University.

763Petitioners’ exhibits number 1, 1 - A, 4 through 12, 17, 19,

77520, 21, 30, 33, 40, 42, and 44 through 49 were admitted into

788evidence. Pages A - 87 and A - 88 of Petitioners’ exhibit 1 and

802Petitioners’ exhibit 46 were admitted over objection. Pages R -

81234 and R - 48 of Petitioners’ exhibit 49 were not admitted into

825evidence, but were proffered, along with related testimony, for

834the record.

836Respondents’ exhibits 1 through 5, 7 through 9, 18, 21

846through 23, 25 through 30, and 32 through 38 were admitted into

858evidence. Respondents’ exhibit 28 was admitted over objection.

866Respondents’ exhibits 6, 31, and Tabs 32 and 44 of exhibit 27

878were offered but not admitted into evidence. Foster exhibits 1

888through 11 were admitted into evidence.

894By stipulation of the parties, post - hearing submittals

903were due within 30 days of the filing of the completed

914transcript. The transcript was filed December 13, 2004. On

923January 5, 2005, University filed a Motion for Extension of

933Time to file post - hearing submissions. By Order, the deadli ne

945for filing post - hearing submissions was extended until

954January 19, 2004. All parties timely filed Proposed

962Recommended Orders which have been reviewed and utilized in

971part in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

979Unless otherwise indicated, cit ations to the Florida

987Statutes refer to the 2004 Florida Statutes.

994FINDINGS OF FACT

997Parties

9981. GM is a “licensee” and “manufacturer” as defined by

1008Sections 320.60(8) and (9), Florida Statutes.

10142. Foster, Stewart, and University are “motor vehic le

1023dealers” as defined by Section 320.60(11)(a)(1), Florida

1030Statutes.

1031Notice and Standing

10343. On October 3, 2003, notice of GM’s intent to permit the

1046relocation of Foster (the Proposed Relocation) from its current

1055location at 36822 Highway 54 West, Z ephyrhills, Florida

1064(Existing Location) to a proposed location at Interstate 75 and

1074State Road 56 in the Wesley Chapel Area (Relocation Site) was

1085published in the Florida Administrative Weekly , Volume 29,

1093Number 40, page 3964. Both the Existing Location a nd the

1104Relocation Site are in Pasco County, Florida.

11114. Stewart is an existing franchised Chevrolet dealer who

1120timely protested the proposed relocation of Foster. Stewart has

1129standing to maintain that protest.

11345. University is an existing franchised Chevrolet dealer.

1142After Roger Whitely Chevrolet, Inc., timely protested the

1150proposed relocation of Foster, University purchased the stock of

1159Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc., and changed the name of the

1169dealership to University Chevrolet. Univer sity acquired the

1177rights of Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc., to protest the proposed

1187relocation, and has standing to maintain that protest.

1195The Community or Territory and Recent Modifications to the

1204Chevrolet Dealer Network

12076. The Community or Territo ry (Comm/Terr) relevant to this

1217proceeding is the area defined by GM as the Tampa Multiple

1228Dealer Area (Tampa MDA) plus the Wesley Chapel and Plant City

1239markets. 2/

12417. There are currently four Chevrolet dealers in the Tampa

1251MDA: Stewart, University, Ferman Chevrolet, and Autoway

1258Chevrolet. There are currently five Chevrolet dealers in the

1267Comm/Terr, the four Tampa MDA dealers plus Bill Heard Chevrolet

1277(Bill Heard) in Plant City.

12828. Foster is not currently in the Tampa MDA or the

1293Comm/Terr. T he area currently assigned to Foster as its Area of

1305Primary Responsibility pursuant to its GM franchise agreement is

1314referred to as a Single Dealer Area (SDA), meaning that Foster

1325is the only dealer assigned to the APR.

13339. The Proposed Relocation would add Foster as a fifth

1343Chevrolet dealer in the Tampa MDA and a sixth Chevrolet dealer

1354in the Comm/Terr. The Comm/Terr currently contains four full

1363line Ford dealerships and one light - truck only Ford dealership.

1374All other line - makes currently have f our or fewer dealers in the

1388Comm/Terr.

138910. In 2004 there were two significant changes in the

1399Chevrolet dealer network within the Comm/Terr. In May of 2004,

1409Bill Heard relocated to a new facility adjacent to Interstate 4,

1420placing Bill Heard in a be tter position to sell into the Tampa

1433MDA along with the expectation of both a significant increase in

1444Bill Heard’s new vehicle sales and Chevrolet’s level of

1453performance in the Comm/Terr. 3/

145811. In June of 2004 University purchased Roger Whitley

1467Che vrolet, changed managers, expanded business hours, and

1475tripled advertising expenditures. The recent ownership change

1482is expected to result in increased new vehicle sales from the

1493dealership and an increased level of Chevrolet performance in

1502the Comm/Terr. 4/

1505Proposed Relocation

150712. In the Fall of 2002, the owner of Foster, Harry M.

1519Foster, requested that GM grant him an additional Chevrolet

1528location in the Wesley Chapel, Florida, area. Subsequently, GM

1537conducted a market study to determine whether it was appropriate

1547to add a Chevrolet location in Wesley Chapel. Marvin Beaupre

1557was assigned the task of analyzing the Wesley Chapel market and

1568determining whether an additional Chevrolet location was

1575justified. Beaupre’s subsequent market study revealed that

1582Chevrolet had historically received an adequate level of

1590representation from existing dealers in the area currently

1598assigned to Foster in its GM franchise agreement (the

1607dealership’s APR). Beaupre concluded that although there

1614appeared to be a defic iency in Chevrolet performance in the

1625Tampa MDA, the deficiency was not significant enough to justify

1635the addition of a new dealership in Wesley Chapel.

164413. When Foster learned of GM’s decision not to add a new

1656Chevrolet dealership in Wesley Chapel , he requested the

1664opportunity to relocate his existing dealership in Zephyrhills,

1672Florida, to the Wesley Chapel area. GM agreed to allow the

1683Proposed Relocation on the basis of growth in the Wesley Chapel

1694and New Tampa area.

169814. Currently, Foster is located in approximately the

1706center of its APR/SDA. The Proposed Relocation would place

1715Foster in the furthest southwestern portion of its APR/SDA, with

1725a location immediately adjacent to the AGSSAs assigned to

1734Stewart and University.

173715. As a result of the Proposed Relocation and the

1747addition of Foster to the Tampa MDA, Stewart and University

1757would be assigned new AGSSAs considerably smaller (in both

1766geography and population) than their existing AGSSAs.

177316. The new AGSSA that would be assigned to Foster as a

1785result of the Proposed Relocation would be larger in terms of

1796population and sale opportunity than its existing APR/SDA.

1804Those portions of the current Foster APR/SDA which would not be

1815included in the AGSSA assigned to Foster after the relocation

1825would be reassigned to the dealership immediately to the north

1835of Foster, Dade City Chevrolet, increasing the geography,

1843population, and sale opportunity of the Dade City Chevrolet

1852APR/SDA. Harry M. Foster owns both Foster and Dade City

1862Ch evrolet.

1864Is Current Representation Adequate

186817. As a result of the Proposed Relocation, certain

1877consumers would suffer a negative impact, although some

1885consumers would have more convenient access to a Chevrolet

1894dealer. Consumers in the new AGSSA t hat would be assigned to

1906Foster would experience an average decrease in distance to a

1916Chevrolet dealer of 3.7 straight - line miles. 5/ Contrarily,

1926consumers in the existing APR/SDA assigned to Foster would

1935experience an average increase in distance to a Che vrolet dealer

1946of 4.0 driving miles, and those same consumers would experience

1956an average increase in distance to Foster of 6.0 driving miles.

196718. Throughout the Comm/Terr, the Proposed Relocation

1974would only result in an average decrease in the dist ance from a

1987consumer to a Chevrolet dealer of .4 straight - line miles. Other

1999than convenience, there is a second factor arising from the

2009Proposed Relocation that could impact consumers. There will be

2018a greater number of consumers located between Foster an d Dade

2029City Chevrolet. Consumers previously located between Foster and

2037Stewart or University (with easier access to cross - shop between

2048Foster and Stewart or University) would be located between

2057Foster and Dade City Chevrolet after the relocation with

2066conv enience lying in the cross - shop between Foster and Dade City

2079Chevrolet. Since both Foster and Dade City Chevrolet are owned

2089and operated by the same individual, it is possible that the

2100Proposed Relocation could result in a decrease of competition

2109among Ch evrolet dealers as it relates to some consumers, a

2120negative impact on those consumers and on the public interest.

213019. In terms of competition between two Chevrolet dealers,

2139convenience to the customer is the most critical factor. The

2149Proposed Reloc ation would move Foster significantly closer to

2158both Stewart and University, and to consumers served by those

2168dealerships. In terms of straight - line distance, the Proposed

2178Relocation would be a move of 10.7 miles. Currently, Foster is

218920 straight - line mi les from Stewart and 19.6 straight - line miles

2203from University. After the relocation, Foster would be 9.7

2212straight - line miles from Gordon Stewart and 10.8 straight - line

2224miles from its old location. In terms of driving time, Foster

2235is currently 37.7 minute s from Stewart and 33.5 minutes from

2246University. After the relocation, Foster would be 18.4 minutes

2255from Stewart and 14.1 minutes from University.

226220. As a result of the Proposed Relocation, Foster would

2272be significantly closer to many consumers n ow closer to either

2283Stewart or University. Additionally, Foster would be

2290significantly closer (both in straight - line distance and drive

2300time) to a large percentage of the existing new vehicle, used

2311vehicle, and service customers of both Stewart and Univer sity.

2321In 2002 and 2003, Stewart and University made 40% of the sales

2333registered in the area to which Foster would gain a convenience

2344advantage as a result of the Proposed Relocation.

235221. There exists a statistical correlation between the

2360size of a dealer’s AGSSA and the number of new vehicle sales

2372made by the dealer. As the size of a dealer’s AGSSA decreases

2384the number of sales made by the dealer will typically decrease.

239522. In this instance, based on the relative change that

2405would result i n the increased convenience of Foster to those

2416consumers who currently find it more convenient to shop at

2426Stewart or University and the decrease in the area in which

2437Stewart or University would have a competitive advantage based

2446on convenience (i.e. a decr ease in each dealer’s AGSSA), a

2457reasonable estimate of impact to Stewart from the Proposed

2466Relocation is a loss of approximately 17% of new vehicle sales

2477and 15% of used vehicle sales and service business. 6/ A

2488reasonable estimate of impact to University from the Proposed

2497Relocation is a loss of approximately 16% of new vehicle sales

2508and 15% of used vehicle sales and service business. 7 /

251923. Based on Stewart’s performance in 2003, the financial

2528losses incurred by Stewart as a result of the Proposed

2538Relocation would be in the range of $600,000 per year. Based on

2551the pro forma financial statement submitted to GM by University

2561at the time of its purchase of Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.,

2572the financial losses incurred by University as a result of the

2583Pr oposed Relocation would be in the range of $750,000 per year. 8 /

259824. The Proposed Relocation could have a significant

2606short - term negative impact on existing dealers, including a

2616significant financial impact on Stewart and University. GM’s

2624expert cl assified short - term as up to a year, and indicated that

2638after that period the market could adjust and existing dealers

2648re - establish their pre - relocation level of performance.

2658However, that dealership growth would, at least in part, be a

2669result of general growth in the market and does not indicate

2680that existing dealers will regain their pre - relocation level of

2691performance in an economic sense (because they have been denied

2701the opportunity to capture the growth that would have resulted

2711from general market ex pansion).

271625. Significantly, the financial loss expected for both

2724Stewart and University could, because of the “turn and earn”

2734system employed by GM to determine vehicle allocation, result in

2744a circumstance known in the automobile industry as a “de ath

2755spiral,” where the dealer cannot earn vehicles because of a slow

2767turn rate and cannot turn vehicles because it has not earned

2778them. As the name implies, the “death spiral” results in a

2789dealer either going out of business or having to sell the

2800dealersh ip.

2802Impact on GM

280526. GM would not significantly benefit from the Proposed

2814Relocation. Although it is clear that there has been recent

2824growth in the Wesley Chapel area and that other manufacturers

2834have, or plan to, establish locations in that genera l area, the

2846evidence establishes that existing Chevrolet dealers are

2853actively pursuing sales and service business in the Wesley

2862Chapel area (including producing a significant amount of

2870advertising for Chevrolet products) and, as noted above, that

2879Chevrolet currently has an adequate level of convenience to

2888customers in Wesley Chapel. The evidence does not establish

2897that GM will enjoy increased sales or overall increased customer

2907convenience as a result of the Proposed Relocation. 9/ Existing

2917Chevrolet deale rs have historically provided an adequate level

2926of customer satisfaction performance and have adequate

2933facilities to serve the Comm/Terr. 10/

293927. Short - term competition between Chevrolet dealers for

2948customers in the Comm/Terr could increase after th e Proposed

2958Relocation. The likelihood, however, that competing Chevrolet

2965dealers will not be as successful as they have been in the past

2978in making sales into the Wesley Chapel area if Foster is

2989relocated, makes it highly probable that competition among

2997Ch evrolet dealers for customers in that area will actually

3007decrease in the long - term. Existing dealers will focus their

3018marketing efforts on areas other than Wesley Chapel.

3026Investment of Existing Dealers

303028. The owners of Stewart and University have invested

3039significant dollar amounts to perform their obligations under

3047their respective GM franchise agreements. The owners of Stewart

3056invested approximately $9,000,000 in purchasing land and

3065constructing facilities for the dealership. The owners of

3073Uni versity recently purchased the stock of Roger Whitley

3082Chevrolet, Inc., and have an investment of $12,000,000 to

3093$14,000,000 in the dealership. The Proposed Relocation would

3103put the investment of the owners of Stewart and University at

3114significant risk.

3116M arket Penetration

311929. A line - make’s market penetration is measured by

3129dividing the number of that line - make’s new vehicles registered

3140in a particular area by the total number of competitive new

3151vehicles registered by all line - makes in the same area.

316230. In determining whether Chevrolet is currently

3169achieving a reasonably expected level of market penetration in

3178the Comm/Terr a reasonable standard or benchmark must first be

3188established against which Chevrolet’s performance is compared

3195which is n either too high nor too low.

320431. Chevrolet’s national average market penetration as a

3212standard against which to judge Chevrolet’s current performance

3220in the Comm/Terr is not reasonable. 11/ There are several reasons

3231why use of the national average is not appropriate to test

3242Chevrolet’s current market penetration in the Comm/Terr. First,

3250the national average represents a very large area (the nation),

3260which is demographically very diverse in terms of culture,

3269economy, politics, climate, terrain, etc. The Comm/Terr, or for

3278that matter the State of Florida as a whole, does not share that

3291same level of diversity. 12/

329632. Second, most manufacturers have rejected national

3303average as a reasonable standard for evaluating dealer

3311performance. Indeed, GM uses state average when evaluating the

3320performance of its Chevrolet dealers. 13/ The deposition

3328testimony of William E.L. Powell, the former Zone Manager

3337responsible for approving network changes such the Proposed

3345Relocation, establishes that, although national average is

3352considered, state average is the focus of GM’s analysis of

3362whether a particular line - make as a whole is being under

3374represented in a market.

337833. Third, the national average includes areas that are

3387heavily influenced by special p urchasing plans provided to GM

3397employees, those employees’ family members, and employees of GM

3406suppliers. Those plans provide participants an incentive to

3414purchase GM products by establishing a standard price (only

3423slightly above dealer cost) at which the participant may

3432purchase a vehicle from any dealer in the country. It is

3443telling that those states in which Chevrolet’s average

3451penetration meets or exceeds what is expected based on national

3461average are almost exclusively found in the “heartland” of

3470Ame rica. Those states, which are the traditional home to

3480manufacturing in this country, are also the states in which

3490Chevrolet’s penetration performance is most likely to be

3498positively influenced by GM’s employee and supplier purchase

3506plans.

350734. Use by GM of the national average as a standard to

3519judge Chevrolet’s performance in the Comm/Terr overlooks the

3527fact that the only Florida MDA in which Chevrolet’s market

3537penetration meets or exceeds what is expected based on national

3547average is Pensacola, Flo rida. In all of the 10 other Florida

3559MDAs, Chevrolet falls short of the expected penetration based on

3569national average. The markets in Florida where Chevrolet does

3578achieve the expected level of market penetration based on

3587national average are significant ly different from the Comm/Terr

3596which is the subject of this proceeding. They tend to be more

3608rural in location than this Comm/Terr and significantly smaller

3617in terms of automobile retail activity. 14/ In these more rural

3628areas, the market penetration of what are traditionally

3636considered domestic brands, such as Chevrolet, tends to be

3645higher than in urban areas because throughout the rural areas

3655there is a lack of representation of what are traditionally

3665considered import brands.

366835. The appropriat e standard against which to measure

3677Chevrolet’s performance in the Comm/Terr, when judging the

3685performance of a line - make in a Florida market, is to use that

3699line - make’s performance in the State of Florida as a whole as

3712the standard. Although there exist differences in the

3720demographic, geographic, economic, and political make - up of the

3730various communities throughout the State, Florida as a whole is

3740much more representative of the Comm/Terr than is the Nation as

3751a whole. 15/

375436. Chevrolet’s performance in the Comm/Terr has

3761historically been either above or essentially at the expected

3770level of penetration based on Florida average. In 2001,

3779Chevrolet performed at 102.8% of the expected level. In 2002,

3789Chevrolet performed at 99.6% of the expected level, and, in

37992003, at 99% of the expected level. In those years where

3810Chevrolet was below the expected level, the shortfall was

3819insignificant (32 out of 7,292 expected units in 2002, and 80

3831out of 7,517 units in 2003). 16/

383937. More importantly, the stat istics presented regarding

3847Chevrolet’s performance during previous years do not reflect the

3856performance of the currently existing dealer network. 17 / Rather,

3866if a reasonable level of increased performance is attributed to

3876Bill Heard as a result of that dea lership’s relocation in May of

38892004 (note 3 supra ), it is unquestionable that Chevrolet does

3900now achieve its expected level of penetration in the Comm/Terr

3910based on Florida average.

391438. As for the AGSSA that would be assigned to Foster if

3926it reloca ted, Chevrolet’s level of penetration in that market

3936has historically been slightly under its expected penetration

3944based on Florida average. In 2001, Chevrolet performed at 94.3%

3954of the expected level, in 2002 Chevrolet performed at 91.1% of

3965the expected level, and in 2003 Chevrolet performed at 91.9% of

3976the expected level. Again, the shortfall in terms of number of

3987retail units sold was not substantial (50 out of 883 expected in

39992001; 82 out of 916 expected in 2002; and 83 out of 1,018

4013expected in 2003).

401639. As with the Comm/Terr, if the impact of changes in the

4028dealer network, which occurred in 2004, are considered (notes 3

4038& 4 supra ), the shortfall in performance within the relocated

4049Foster AGSSA disappears or becomes statistically insignificant .

4057Thus, under the currently existing dealer network, Chevrolet’s

4065present penetration in the relocated Foster AGSSA does not fall

4075significantly below the Florida average. The minimal shortfall

4083that may exist in the relocated Foster AGSSA relates to the fa ct

4096that Chevrolet products do not perform as well in higher income

4107markets as in markets with more modest incomes. This phenomenon

4117is a factor beyond the control of the dealers within the

4128Comm/Terr. Because Wesley Chapel is a higher income area,

4137Chevrole t cannot be expected to perform as well in that market

4149as in the Comm/Terr as a whole.

4156GM Denial Of Growth Opportunity to Existing Dealers

416440. The owners of Stewart established the dealership in

41731991. The dealership was established as an addition al

4182dealership location granted by GM, and GM established the exact

4192location of the dealership. Prior to agreeing to open the

4202dealership, Gordon Stewart, the principal owner, expressed to GM

4211his concern that the dealership was to be located in a sparsely

4223p opulated area north of Tampa. In response to Mr. Stewart’s

4234concerns, GM reassured him that it had conducted a market study

4245and determined that the location they had chosen was the optimal

4256location for the dealership based on future market growth GM

4266reaso nably expected to occur north of Tampa.

427441. Based on GM’s assurances, Mr. Stewart and his partner,

4284Arthur Smith, made considerable investment in constructing and

4292equipping the dealership, with what they believed to be a

4302reasonable expectation of se lling approximately 2,500 new

4311vehicles each year. The growth, however, that GM expected north

4321of Tampa did not materialize, except for in the Wesley Chapel

4332area. Nor has Stewart reached its projection of 2,500 new units

4344sold per year, achieving instead o nly half as many sales.

4355Because of the number of competitive dealers located south of

4365Stewart, the dealership has had to rely on growth in the Wesley

4377Chapel area as the basis for a significant portion of its

4388profits and for future growth potential of the dealership,

4397particularly as areas immediately surrounding the dealership

4404have begun to decline.

440842. As discussed above, the Proposed Relocation would have

4417a significant negative financial impact on Stewart and

4425University. Additionally, the Propose d Relocation would deny

4433Stewart the opportunity to serve the North Tampa market, which

4443was the original purpose for establishing the dealership.

445143. GM’s approval of the Proposed Relocation would deny

4460Stewart the reasonable opportunity for expansio n and growth of

4470its business that GM indicated would be available when

4479Mr. Stewart and Mr. Smith agreed to invest in the dealership.

4490Coercion of Existing Dealers

449444. There have been no efforts by GM to coerce existing

4505dealers to consent to the prop osed relocation.

4513Distance and Accessibility

451645. Distance and travel time, between Foster and Stewart

4525and Foster and University would be reduced by half if the

4536Proposed Relocation were to occur. There, however, is no

4545indication that consumers in the Comm/Terr do not already have

4555easy access to existing Chevrolet dealers in the Comm/Terr. At

4565present, Chevrolet currently enjoys the second lowest average

4573distance to consumer measurement of all the line - makes

4583represented in the Comm/Terr. The Proposed Relocation would not

4592add any significant improvement to the ability of customers in

4602the Comm/Terr to access a Chevrolet dealer.

4609Benefits to Consumers Obtained by Geographic or Demographic

4617Changes

461846. Rather than providing benefits to consumers tha t are

4628not likely to be obtained by geographic or demographic changes

4638in the Comm/Terr, the Proposed Relocation may result in a

4648negative impact to consumers.

4652Protesting Dealers And Dealer Agreements Compliance

465847. Stewart and University are in comp liance with the

4668terms of their dealer agreements.

4673Adequacy of Interbrand and Intrabrand Competition and Consumer

4681Care

468248. The high level of market penetration being achieved by

4692Chevrolet in the Comm/Terr and the increase in that market

4702penetration that will occur as a result of the recent dealer

4713network changes, indicates that there is adequate intrabrand and

4722interbrand competition in the Comm/Terr. (notes 3 & 4 supra. )

4733As previously noted, Chevrolet’s level of convenient consumer

4741care is among t he best in the Comm/Terr.

475049. As for existing dealership facilities, the existing

4758Chevrolet dealers in the Comm/Terr have facilities which are

4767adequate to service the market.

4772Relocation Justification Based on Economic and Marketing

4779Conditions

478050. There are no economic or marketing conditions to

4789justify the Proposed Relocation. The recent changes in the

4798dealer network (the Bill Heard relocation and the change of

4808ownership at University) have made this even more emphatic.

4817Volume of Exi sting Dealers Registrations and Service Business

482651. The existing Chevrolet dealers are transacting a

4834significant level of service and sales business in the

4843Comm/Terr. In terms of retail sales volume, in 2003 Chevrolet

4853ranked second in passenger ve hicle sales and second in light -

4865truck sales registered within the Comm/Terr.

4871CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

487452. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

4881jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of,

4891these proceedings. § 120.569, Fla. Stat.

489753. Respondents have standing to protest the proposed

4905relocation.

490654. Chapter 320, Florida Statutes, governs this matter.

4914Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, exists, within that chapter,

4922for the purpose of protecting existing motor vehicle dea lers from

4933unnecessary and potentially harmful changes to a manufacturer’s

4941dealer network in a particular market. Bill Kelley Chevrolet,

4950Inc. v. Calvin , 322 So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

496055. Accordingly, a dealer network change (i.e. the addition

4969of a new dealership or relocation of an existing dealership)

4979should be made only if its existing dealers in the market in

4991question are not adequately representing the manufacturer.

4998§ 320.642(2)(a)2., Fla. Stat. In making the determination that a

5008manufacturer is not being adequately represented in a market, it

5018is not enough to simply conclude that the existing dealers could

5029do a better job, or that the proposed dealer network change will

5041improve the manufacturer’s performance in the market. Hess

5049Marine, Inc. v. Calvin , 296 So. 2d 114, 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

5062While, however, one must not forget the famous words of Louise

5073Heath Leber that “[t] here’s always room for improvement, you

5083know — it’s the biggest room in the house,” 18/ that sentiment does

5097not equate to inadequate representation. The real focus of

5106proceedings brought under Section 320.642 is whether the existing

5115dealers are doing enough.

511956. In making the determination of whether Chevrolet is

5128being adequately represented in the relevant Comm/Ter r in this

5138case, Section 320.642 calls for a balancing of factors. In

5148essence, the decision - maker must balance any deficiency in

5158Chevrolet’s performance within the Comm/Terr and the degree to

5167which that deficiency will be addressed by the proposed

5176relocati on, along with the impact that the relocation will have

5187upon the other existing dealers and consumers. Petitioner, GM,

5196bears the burden of establishing that the existing franchised

5205Chevrolet dealers are not providing adequate representation of

5213Chevrolet i n the Comm/Terr. § 320.642(2)(a)(2), Fla. Stat.

522257. With respect to whether or not a proposal to relocate

5233an existing dealer may be approved following a protest, Section

5243320.642(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:

5247(2)(a) An application for a motor vehicle dealer

5255license in any community or territory shall be denied

5264when:

52651. A timely protest is filed by a presently

5274existing franchised motor vehicle dealer with

5280standing to protest as defined in subsection (3);

5288and

52892. The licensee fails to show that the existing

5298franchised dealer or dealers who register new

5305motor vehicle retail sales or retail leases of

5313the same line - make in the community or territory

5323of the proposed dealership are not providing

5330adequate representation of such line - make motor

5338vehicle s in such community or territory. The

5346burden of proof in establishing inadequate

5352representation shall be on the licensee.

535858. The statute goes on to provide the following salient

5368criteria in Section 620.642(2)(b)1. - 11., to be utilized in

5378determinin g whether existing representation is adequate, as

5386follows:

53871. The impact of the establishment of the

5395proposed or relocated dealer on the

5401consumers, public interest, existing dealers,

5406and the licensee; provided, however, that

5412financial impact may only be c onsidered with

5420respect to the protesting dealer or dealers.

54272. The size and permanency of investment

5434reasonably made and reasonable obligations

5439incurred by the existing dealer or dealers to

5447perform their obligations under the dealer

5453agreement.

54543. The reasonably expected market

5459penetration of the line - make motor vehicle

5467for the community or territory involved,

5473after consideration of all factors which may

5480affect said penetration, including, but not

5486limited to, demographic factors such as age,

5493income, ed ucation, size class preference,

5499product popularity, retail lease

5503transactions, or other factors affecting

5508sales to consumers of the community or

5515territory.

55164. Any actions by the licensees in denying

5524its existing dealer or dealers of the same

5532line - make t he opportunity for reasonable

5540growth, market expansion, or relocation,

5545including the availability of line - make

5552vehicles in keeping with the reasonable

5558expectations of the licensee in providing an

5565adequate number of dealers in the community

5572or territory.

55745. Any attempts by the licensee to coerce

5582the existing dealer or dealers into

5588consenting to additional or relocated

5593franchises of the same line - make in the

5602community or territory.

56056. Distance, travel time, traffic patterns,

5611and accessibility between th e existing dealer

5618or dealers of the same line - make and the

5628location of the proposed additional or

5634relocated dealer.

56367. Whether benefits to consumers will likely

5643occur from the establishment or relocation of

5650the dealership which cannot be obtained by

5657oth er geographic or demographic changes or

5664expected changes in the community or

5670territory.

56718. Whether the protesting dealer or dealers

5678are in substantial compliance with their

5684dealer agreement.

56869. Whether there is adequate interbrand and

5693intrabrand comp etition with respect to said

5700line - make in the community or territory and

5709adequately convenient consumer care for the

5715motor vehicles of the line - make, including

5723the adequacy of sales and service facilities.

573010. Whether the establishment or relocation

5736of the proposed dealership appears to be

5743warranted and justified based on economic and

5750marketing conditions pertinent to dealers

5755competing in the community or territory,

5761including anticipated future changes.

576511. The volume of registrations and service

5772busi ness transacted by the existing dealer or

5780dealers of the same line - make in the relevant

5790community or territory of the proposed

5796dealership.

5797These criteria are summarized in tag lines in the Findings of

5808Fact.

580959. The relevant Comm/Terr in this matt er is the Tampa

5820MDA, as defined by GM, plus the Wesley Chapel and Plant City

5832markets.

583360. There is no evidence that the Proposed Relocation will

5843provide benefit to consumers or is in the public interest.

5853Rather, it appears that the Proposed Relocati on could result in

5864a negative impact to consumers and the public interest.

587361. GM’s reliance upon Chevrolet’s national average market

5881penetration as the appropriate standard against which to judge

5890the line - make’s performance in the Comm/Terr, is mis placed. The

5902Florida average is the appropriate standard for judging

5910Chevrolet’s performance in the Comm/Terr. Using the Florida

5918average as the standard, the existing Chevrolet dealer network

5927is providing a reasonable level of market penetration in the

5937Co mm/Terr and in the AGSSA that would be assigned to Foster

5949after the relocation.

595262. The Proposed Relocation will have a significant

5960adverse impact on existing dealers, including a significant

5968negative financial impact on Stewart and University.

597563. In this case, on balance, the evidence relating to the

5986eleven statutory factors outlined in Section 320.642(2)(a),

5993Florida Statutes, weighs in favor of Respondents and establishes

6002that GM has failed to meet its burden of proving that current

6014Chevrolet dealers are not providing adequate representation.

6021Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., et al. v. King Motor

6032Co. of Coconut Creek LTD, et al. , Final Order No.: HSMV - 00 - 740 -

6048FOF - DMV (Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, December 12,

60602000). Furthe r, GM presented only minimal evidence, primarily

6069in the form of estimations, regarding the adequacy of

6078Chevrolet’s representation in the Comm/Terr after significant

6085changes in the dealer network occurred in 2004 (in particular

6095the relocation of Bill Heard) .

610164. All parties agree that changes occurring in the

6110Comm/Terr since 2003 (the date of the most recent data presented

6121by GM), will positively impact Chevrolet’s performance in the

6130Comm/Terr. However, no party was able to precisely quantify

6139that i mpact such that a determination can be made as to the

6152level of representation being provided to Chevrolet by the

6161current dealer network. The Mitsubishi decision requires that

6169once a manufacturer has implemented a dealer network change in a

6180community or te rritory (such as the Bill Heard relocation) the

6191manufacturer must wait until the effect of that change on the

6202line - make’s level of representation can be determined before

6212seeking to implement a second change in the dealer network

6222within the community or te rritory.

622865. In this case, the relocation of Bill Heard took place

6239in May of 2004. That relocation was approved and supported by

6250GM. That relocation represented a change to the Chevrolet

6259dealer network within the Comm/Terr. The impact of that

6268relo cation, as well as the expected increase in University's

6278sales, on Chevrolet's representation and market penetration in

6286the Comm/Terr cannot yet be determined and therefore, makes it

6296impossible to determine if there is currently inadequate

6304representation. GM has failed to satisfy its burden of proof

6314that the currently existing dealer network is providing

6322inadequate representation and should be prohibited from

6329implementing the dealer network change that is proposed in this

6339proceeding.

6340RECOMMENDATION

6341Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact,

6348Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and

6359demeanor of the witnesses, it is

6365RECOMMENDED:

6366That a final order be entered determining that Petitioner,

6375General Motors Corporation, has failed to sa tisfy its burden of

6386establishing that existing Chevrolet dealers are not currently

6394providing adequate representation to the Chevrolet line - make

6403within the community or territory of the proposed relocation,

6412and denying the application to relocate Foster fro m its current

6423location to the proposed location at I - 75 and State Road 56.

6436DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2005 in

6446Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

6450S

6451DON W. DAVIS

6454Administrative Law Judge

6457Division of Administrative Hearings

6461The DeSoto Building

64641230 Apalachee Parkway

6467Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

6472(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

6480Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

6486www.doah.state.fl.us

6487Filed with the Clerk of the

6493Division of Administrative Hearings

6497this 16th day of February, 2005.

6503ENDN OTES

65051/ Respondent University, an existing franchised Chevrolet

6512dealer, purchased the stock of Roger Whitley Chevrolet

6520dealership, changed the name to University and has continued the

6530protest which is the subject of this proceeding.

65382/ An MDA, as the na me suggests, is a market containing more

6551than one Chevrolet dealer. The dealers in an MDA are assigned

6562by GM an Area of Primary Responsibility (“APR”), which is equal

6573to the geography of the whole MDA. Each dealer within the MDA

6585is also assigned an Area of Geographic Sales and Service

6595Advantage (“AGSSA”) which contains those areas within the APR

6604that are closer to that dealer than to any other MDA dealer

6616(i.e. the area in which the dealer has a sales advantage over

6628other dealers simply because of proximit y). (T: 93 - 94.)

66393/ It is difficult to predict the precise impact that the

6650Bill Heard relocation will have upon Chevrolet’s performance in

6659the Comm/Terr. However, at the final hearing evidence was

6668presented which supports a reasonable conclusion that Bi ll

6677Heard’s new vehicle sales will increase in the range of between

668860% to 100%. (T:196 - 197; T:224 - 230; T:302 - 303; T:429 - 432;

6703T:544 - 545; T:850 - 858; Pet. Ex. 47.)

67124/ Again, it is difficult to predict the precise impact that

6723the ownership change will have upon Chevrolet’s performance in

6732the Comm/Terr. However, evidence was presented at the final

6741hearing which supports a reasonable conclusion that the

6749dealership’s new vehicle sales will increase in the range of

6759between 10% to 40%. (T:199 - 202; T:429 - 432; T: 454 - 455; T:855 -

6775858; Pet. Ex. 1 at R - 74; Pet. Ex. 47.)

67865/ Currently in the AGSSA that would be assigned to Foster

6797after the relocation, Chevrolet has a better level of

6806convenience to consumers than every line - make other than Kia and

6818Ford. (T:339 - 340; Pet . Ex. 1 at A - 72.)

68306/ Both co - owners of Stewart testified that Marvin Beaupre

6841admitted to them that he expected the dealership would have

6851losses of 20% as a result of the relocation. (T:694 - 695; T:767 -

6865768.)

68667/ There was significant evidence presented i n the form of

6877“real world” examples to support the conclusion that losses will

6887result to existing dealers as a result of the Proposed

6897Relocation. (T:904 - 925; Res. Ex. 27 at Tabs 27, 27A, and 31A.)

69108/ University presented evidence that indicated that the

6918financial losses incurred by University as a result of the

6928Proposed relocation would be in the range of One Million and Two

6940Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) to One Million Four

6950Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($1,440,000) per year.

6960(Brodsky at 15 ; Slader at 33.)

69669/ The evidence actually establishes that customer

6973convenience is not an important factor in competition between

6982dealers of competing line - makes (interbrand competitors).

6990(T:884 - 885; Res. Ex. 27 at Tab 36.)

699910/ Indeed, Foster recently completed a Two Million Dollar

7008($2,000,000) upgrade on its existing facility. (T:435; T:594 -

7019595; Res. Exs. 1 - 4.)

702511/ GM also presented the Clearwater/St. Petersburg average

7033market penetration as a second possible standard for comparison.

7042(T:148 - 150; P et. Ex. 1 at A - 28 to A - 31.1.) Because it is

7060apparent that the State of Florida average is the appropriate

7070standard to apply in this matter, it is not necessary to further

7082discuss use of the Clearwater/St. Petersburg average.

708912/ Although GM’s expert tes tified that his use of a segment

7101adjustment process accounts for all such variables and

7109differences between the nation and the Comm/Terr, it would be

7119mathematically impossible to control the hundreds of variables

7127that exist by simply running an analysis th at considers only 30

7139or so product segments. (T:840 - 41.)

714613/ Prior to 1999 GM did use national average to evaluate

7157dealer performance. (T:271 - 272; T:840 - 844; Res. Ex. 12 at 8.)

7170However, after establishing a committee to study the matter, GM

7180adopted th e state average as the appropriate standard for dealer

7191evaluations. A representative of GM’s expert served on that

7200committee and suggested that GM use the higher of either

7210national, state, or another more local area as the standard for

7221evaluating dealer p erformance. That suggestion was rejected by

7230GM. (T:271 - 272.)

723414/ By way of example, based on the national average the

7245Comm/Terr was expected to have 7,528 retail Chevrolet

7254registrations through September of 2003. Every Florida market

7262in which Chevrole t met or exceeded its expected level of

7273penetration based on national average through September of 2003

7282had less than 2,000 expected retail registrations. Only two of

7293those markets had more than 1,000 expected retail registrations.

7303(T:290 - 292; Res. Ex. 1 at App - 63 & App - 64.)

731715/ Although Stewart and University did present the average

7326performance of Chevrolet in the Florida MDAs as another

7335reasonable standard against which to judge the Comm/Terr (T:858 -

7345860), it is not necessary to discuss that analysis as it is

7357apparent that the Comm/Terr meets or exceeds the Florida average

7367with the currently existing dealer network.

737316/ In fact, any shortfall is within the margin of error

7384that one would expect to see in this type of statistical

7395measurement. Therefor e, it would be mathematically impossible

7403to state that in 2002 and 2003 the Comm/Terr was not performing

7415at the expected level. (T:847 - 849; Res. Ex. 27 at Tab 9.)

742817/ Indeed, that is another failing of GM’s analysis, which

7438also does not consider the imp act of recent changes in the

7450dealer network, such as the Bill Heard relocation. (T:237 - 238.)

746118/ On being chosen Mother of the Year, NY Post 14 May 61.

7474COPIES FURNISHED :

7477Carl A. Ford, Director

7481Division of Motor Vehicles

7485Department of Highway Safety

7489and Motor Vehicles

7492Neil Kirkman Building, Room B - 439

7499Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0500

7504Michael J. Alderman, Esquire

7508Department of Highway Safety

7512and Motor Vehicles

7515Neil Kirkman Building, Room A - 432

75222900 Apalachee Parkway

7525Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 050 0

7531Fred J. Lotterhos, III, Esquire

7536Holland & Knight, LLP

754050 North Laura Street, Suite 3900

7546Jacksonville, Florida 32202

7549Dean Bunch, Esquire

7552Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan, LLP

75572282 Killearn Center Boulevard

7561Tallahassee, Florida 32309 - 3576

7566Mark L. Ornste in, Esquire

7571Killgore, Pearlman, Stamp, Ornstein

7575and Squires, P.A.

7578Post Office Box 1913

7582Orlando, Florida 32802 - 1913

7587John W. Forehand, Esquire

7591Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.

7596125 South Gadsden Street, Suite 300

7602Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1525

7607Edward Qu inton, Esquire

7611Adams, Quinton and Paretti, P.A.

761680 Southwest Eight Street, Suite 2150

7622Miami, Florida 33130

7625NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

7631All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

764115 days from the date of this Recommende d Order. Any exceptions

7653to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

7664will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2005
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2005
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2005
Proceedings: Respondent, University Chevrolet, Inc.`s Response to Exceptions to Recommend Order Filed by Petitioners, General Motors Corporation and Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2005
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2005
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held October 25-29, 2004). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2005
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2005
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in which to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed by D. Bunch).
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2005
Proceedings: Appendix to Buddy Foster Chevrolet`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2005
Proceedings: Buddy Foster Chevrolet`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2005
Proceedings: Respondent, University Chevrolet, Inc.`s Closing Argument and Memoranum of Law filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2005
Proceedings: Petitioner General Motors Corporation`s Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2005
Proceedings: Petitioner General Motors Corporation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2005
Proceedings: Arguement (filed by J. Forehand).
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2005
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order of Respondents, Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc. and University Chevrolet, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/06/2005
Proceedings: Respondent, University Chevrolet, LLC.`s Motion for Extension of Time filed.
Date: 12/13/2004
Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes I-IX) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (document filed with the Deparment of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles establishing the location of an additional dealership) filed by D. Bunch.
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner General Motors Corporation`s Proffer of Testimonry filed.
Date: 10/25/2004
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2004
Proceedings: Amended Pre-hearing Stipulation (filed by J. Forehand via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2004
Proceedings: Deposition (of M. Beaupre) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/20/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner General Motors Corporation`s Notice of Filing (deposition transcript of M. Beaupre) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2004
Proceedings: Respondent, Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc.`s First Revised Exhibit List (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Amended Exhibit List (filed by J. Forehand via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2004
Proceedings: Respondent, University Chevrolet, LLC.`s Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 09/29/2004
Proceedings: Respondent, Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.`s Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition (Telephonic (S. Farhat) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (S. Farhat) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner, Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Notice of Taking Deposition (Dr. E. Manuel) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (V. Nelawake) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2004
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 25 through 29, 2004; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Dates).
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2004
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Continue (telephone conference to be held July 14, 2004, at 11:00 a.m. to set a new final hearing date).
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2004
Proceedings: Supplement to Motion for Continuance (filed by J. Forehand via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner General Motors Corporation`s Response to Respondent`s Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2004
Proceedings: (Joint) Pre-hearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner, Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Response in Opposition to Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner, Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Request for Conference Call Hearing on Pending Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2004
Proceedings: (Joint) Supplement to Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2004
Proceedings: Order. (Motion to Compel is moot)
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2004
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance (filed by Respondents via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 06/30/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner General Motors Corporation`s Response to Respondent`s Motion to Compel Discovery (filed via facsimile)
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (J. Gurley, C. Ritchie, and J. Barrett) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2004
Proceedings: Respondent, Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc.`s Motion to Compel Discovery from Petitioner, General Motors Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2004
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Deposition (B. Powell) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2004
Proceedings: Respondent, Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.`s Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition (D. Chandler and M. Beaupre) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner, Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (G. Stewart) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2004
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Deposition for M. Beaupre (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition for M. Beaupre (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition for D. Chandler (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (B. Powell) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Change of Address (filed by K. Paretti via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2004
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for July 19 through 23, 2004; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2004
Proceedings: Amended Notice for Deposition (B. Foster) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner, Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (A. Smith) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner, Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Notice of Taking Deposition (A. Smith) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2004
Proceedings: Joint Response to Respondents` Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile).
Date: 05/24/2004
Proceedings: ACHA`s Response to Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2004
Proceedings: Notice for Deposition (B. Foster) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2004
Proceedings: Order. (responses must be filed with DOAH no later than 5:00pm on May 26, 2004)
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2004
Proceedings: Joinder in Motion for Continuance (filed by J. Adams via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2004
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance (filed by J. Forehand via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by M. Ornstein, Esquire, via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2004
Proceedings: Respondent, Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.`s Re-Notice of Taking Deposition (S. Farhat) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/19/2004
Proceedings: Respondent, Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc.`s Notice of Taking Deposition (S. Farhat) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2004
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion for Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/08/2004
Proceedings: (Proposed) Protective Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/08/2004
Proceedings: Consent Motion for Entry of an Order Approving and Adopting the Parties` Proposed Protective Order (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 02/26/2004
Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/26/2004
Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Response and Objections to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2004
Proceedings: Petitioner Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc.`s Response and Objections to Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2004
Proceedings: Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc.`s Objections and Responses to Petitioner`s First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Interrogatories Answers filed by J. Forehand.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2004
Proceedings: Request for Admissions (filed by J. Adams via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2004
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by D. Bunch, Esquire, via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2003
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 14 through 18, 2004; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2003
Proceedings: GM`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent (Case No. 03-4084) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2003
Proceedings: Order Granting Consolidation. (consolidated cases are: 03-004083, 03-004084)
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2003
Proceedings: Stipulated Protective Order (filed by F. Lotterhos, III via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2003
Proceedings: GM`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2003
Proceedings: GM`s First Request for Produce Documents to Respondent (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2003
Proceedings: Respondent`s First Request for Production Propounded to Petitioner General Motors Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2003
Proceedings: Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Petitioner, General Motors Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/17/2003
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order and Motion to Consolidate (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2003
Proceedings: Amended Joint Response to Initial Order and Motion to Consolidate (Cases requested 03-4084 and 03-4083) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order and Motion to Consolidate (Cases requested 03-4083 and 03-4084) filed by F. Lotterhos, III via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Initial Order (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by F. Lotterhos, III, Esquire, via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Approval of Relocation of Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance and Request for Administrative Hearing (filed by J. Adams, Esquire).
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2003
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
DON W. DAVIS
Date Filed:
11/04/2003
Date Assignment:
11/05/2003
Last Docket Entry:
05/13/2005
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):