08-005248 Sunl Group, Inc., And Tgt Companies, Inc., D/B/A Extreme Motor Sales vs. Action Orlando Motorsports
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 14, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: No evidence was presented that existing motorcycle dealership does not adequately represent line-make in the territory of proposed dealership.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8SUNL GROUP, INC., AND TGT )

14COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a EXTREME )

19MOTOR SALES, )

22)

23Petitioners, )

25)

26vs. ) Case No. 08-5248

31)

32ACTION ORLANDO MOTORSPORTS, )

36)

37Respondent. )

39)

40RECOMMENDED ORDER

42On January 6, 2009, an administrative hearing in this case

52was held in Orlando, Florida, before Lawrence P. Stevenson,

61Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings

68(DOAH).

69APPEARANCES

70For Petitioners: No appearance

74For Respondent: James Sursely, pro se

80Action Orlando Motorsports

83306 West Main Street

87Apopka, Florida 32712

90STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

94The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Apopka, Florida.

115PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

117On September 19, 2008, SunL Group, Inc. and TGT Companies,

127Inc., d/b/a Extreme Motor Sales (Petitioners) published a Notice

136of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in

147a County of More than 300,000 Population in the Florida

158Administrative Weekly . Respondent Action Orlando Motorsports

165filed a protest with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor

176Vehicles (Department) on October 10, 2008. By letter dated

185October 17, 2008, the Department referred the matter to DOAH to

196assign an administrative law judge to conduct a hearing "for the

207sole purpose of determining the propriety of the protest

216regarding issues specifically within the purview of Sections

224320.642 and 320.699, Florida Statutes."

229The hearing was convened as scheduled. Respondent was

237present and ready to proceed. Petitioners made no appearance.

246James Sursely, the owner of Action Orlando Motorsports,

254testified at the hearing. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was offered

263and received into evidence.

267The hearing was not transcribed. Respondent waived the

275filing of a proposed recommended order. All references to the

285Florida Statutes are to the 2008 edition unless otherwise

294indicated.

295FINDINGS OF FACT

2981. Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of

306motorcycles manufactured by Chuanl Motorcycle Manufacturing Co.,

313Ltd. (CHUA).

3152. Petitioners have proposed the establishment of a new

324dealership to sell the same line and make of motorcycles as

335those sold by Respondent.

3393. Respondent's dealership is located at 306 West Main

348Street, Apopka, Florida 32712.

3524. Petitioners' proposed dealership would be located at

3601918 South Orange Blossom Trail, Apopka, Florida 32703.

3685. The proposed dealership is within a 12.5-mile radius of

378Respondent's dealership.

3806. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of

389the proposed dealership.

392CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3957. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject

4058. The Department is the agency responsible for regulating

414the licensing and franchising of motor vehicle dealers.

422§§ 320.60-320.70, Fla. Stat.

4269. Subsection 320.642(1), Florida Statutes, requires a

433motor vehicle dealer who proposes to establish an additional

442motor vehicle dealership within an area already represented by

451the same line-make vehicle to give written notice to the

461Department of its intent to establish a new franchise. The

471statute also provides that any affected dealership may protest

480the establishment of a new franchise in its territory.

48910. Subsection 320.642(2), Florida Statutes, establishes

495the standards of review to determine if establishment of a new,

506competing motor vehicle franchise should be granted. Subsection

514320.642(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:

521An application for a motor vehicle dealer

528license in any community or territory shall

535be denied when:

5381. A timely protest is filed by a presently

547existing franchised motor vehicle dealer

552with standing to protest as defined in

559subsection (3); and

5622. The licensee fails to show that the

570existing franchised dealer or dealers who

576register new motor vehicle retail sales or

583retail leases of the same line-make in the

591community or territory of the proposed

597dealership are not providing adequate

602representation of such line-make motor

607vehicles in such community or territory. The

614burden of proof in establishing inadequate

620representation shall be on the licensee.

62611. Pursuant to Subsection (3)(b)1. of Section 320.642,

634Florida Statutes, "if the proposed additional . . . motor

644vehicle dealer is to be located in a county with a population of

657more than 300,000," as in the instant case, then any existing

669motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make whose licensed

678franchise location is within a radius of 12.5 miles of the

689proposed additional dealer has standing to file a protest within

699the meaning of Subsection (2)(a)1. of the statute.

70712. Respondent is an existing motor vehicle dealer who has

717standing to file a protest of the proposed new dealership in

728this case.

73013. The burden is therefore on Petitioners to prove that

740there is "inadequate representation" in the community or

748territory of the proposed new dealership, according to the

757criteria set forth in Subsection 320.642(2)(b), Florida

764Statutes.

76514. Petitioners made no appearance and presented no

773evidence at the final hearing. Petitioners failed to meet their

783burden of proof.

78615. The approval sought by Petitioners must therefore be

795denied.

796RECOMMENDATION

797Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

807Law, it is

810RECOMMENDED:

811That the Department of Transportation enter a final order

820denying the establishment of Petitioners' proposed franchise.

827DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2009, in

837Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

841S

842LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

845Administrative Law Judge

848Division of Administrative Hearings

852The DeSoto Building

8551230 Apalachee Parkway

858Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

861(850) 488-9675

863Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

867www.doah.state.fl.us

868Filed with the Clerk of the

874Division of Administrative Hearings

878this 14th day of January, 2009.

884COPIES FURNISHED :

887Electra Theodorides-Bustle,

889Executive Director

891Department of Highway Safety

895and Motor Vehicles

898Neil Kirkman Building

9012900 Apalachee Parkway

904Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

907Robin Lotane, General Counsel

911Department of Highway Safety

915and Motor Vehicles

918Neil Kirkman Building

9212900 Apalachee Parkway

924Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

927Michael J. Alderman, Esquire

931Department of Highway Safety

935and Motor Vehicles

938Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432

9432900 Apalachee Parkway

946Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635

949Mei Zhou

951SunL Group, Inc.

9548551 Ester Boulevard

957Irving, Texas 75063

960James Sursely

962Action Orlando Motorsports

965306 West Main Street

969Apopka, Florida 32712

972Tina Wilson

974TGT Companies, Inc., d/b/a Extreme

979Motor Sales

9811918 South Orange Blossom Trail

986Apopka, Florida 32703

989NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

995All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

100515 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

1016to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

1027will issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2009
Proceedings: (Agency) Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2009
Proceedings: Corrected RO
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2009
Proceedings: Corrected Recommended Order.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2009
Proceedings: Corrected Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held January 6, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 01/06/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 01/06/2009
Proceedings: Withdrawal of Case filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2008
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 6, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando, FL; amended as to Location).
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 6, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2008
Proceedings: Protest of Intent to Establish a New Point Dealership filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2008
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON
Date Filed:
10/21/2008
Date Assignment:
10/21/2008
Last Docket Entry:
04/24/2009
Location:
Orlando, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):