09-001267 El Sol Trading, Inc., And Tgt Companies, Inc., D/B/A Extreme Motor Sales vs. Action Orlando Motorsports
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, May 29, 2009.


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

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8EL SOL TRADING, INC., AND TGT )

15COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a EXTREME )

20MOTOR SALES, )

23)

24Petitioners, )

26)

27vs. ) Case No. 09-1267

32)

33ACTION ORLANDO MOTORSPORTS, )

37)

38Respondent. )

40)

41RECOMMENDED ORDER

43On May 18, 2009, an administrative hearing in this case was

54held via teleconference from locations in Tallahassee and

62Orlando, Florida, before Lawrence P. Stevenson, Administrative

69Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

76APPEARANCES

77For Petitioners: (No appearance)

81For Respondent: James Sursely, pro se

87Action Orlando Motorsports

90306 West Main Street

94Apopka, Florida 32712

97STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

101The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to a motor vehicle dealership that is proposed to be located in Apopka, Florida.

122PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

124On February 27, 2009, El Sol Trading, Inc., and TGT

134Companies, Inc., d/b/a Extreme Motor Sales (Petitioners)

141published a Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise

151Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population

163in the Florida Administrative Weekly . Respondent Action Orlando

172Motorsports filed a protest with the Department of Highway

181Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) on March 9, 2009. By

191letter dated March 11, 2009, the Department referred the matter

201to DOAH to assign an administrative law judge to conduct a

212hearing "for the sole purpose of determining the propriety of

222the protest regarding issues specifically within the purview of

231Sections 320.642 and 320.699, Florida Statutes."

237The hearing was convened as scheduled. Respondent was

245present and ready to proceed. Petitioners made no appearance.

254James Sursely, the owner of Action Orlando Motorsports,

262testified at the hearing.

266The hearing was not transcribed. Respondent waived the

274filing of a proposed recommended order. All references to the

284Florida Statutes are to the 2008 edition unless otherwise

293indicated.

294FINDINGS OF FACT

2971. Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of

305motorcycles manufactured by Chuanl Motorcycle Manufacturing Co.,

312Ltd. (CHUA).

3142. Petitioners have proposed the establishment of a new

323dealership to sell the same line and make of motorcycles as

334those sold by Respondent.

3383. Respondent's dealership is located at 306 West Main

347Street, Apopka, Florida 32712.

3514. Petitioners' proposed dealership would be located at

3591918 South Orange Blossom Trail, Apopka, Florida 32703.

3675. The proposed dealership is within a 12.5-mile radius of

377Respondent's dealership.

3796. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of

388the proposed dealership.

391CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3947. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject

4048. The Department is the agency responsible for regulating

413the licensing and franchising of motor vehicle dealers.

421§§ 320.60-320.70, Fla. Stat.

4259. Subsection 320.642(1), Florida Statutes, requires a

432motor vehicle dealer who proposes to establish an additional

441motor vehicle dealership within an area already represented by

450the same line-make vehicle to give written notice to the

460Department of its intent to establish a new franchise. The

470statute also provides that any affected dealership may protest

479the establishment of a new franchise in its territory.

48810. Subsection 320.642(2), Florida Statutes, establishes

494the standards of review to determine if establishment of a new,

505competing motor vehicle franchise should be granted. Subsection

513320.642(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:

520An application for a motor vehicle dealer

527license in any community or territory shall

534be denied when:

5371. A timely protest is filed by a presently

546existing franchised motor vehicle dealer

551with standing to protest as defined in

558subsection (3); and

5612. The licensee fails to show that the

569existing franchised dealer or dealers who

575register new motor vehicle retail sales or

582retail leases of the same line-make in the

590community or territory of the proposed

596dealership are not providing adequate

601representation of such line-make motor

606vehicles in such community or territory.

612The burden of proof in establishing

618inadequate representation shall be on the

624licensee.

62511. Pursuant to Subsection (3)(b)1. of Section 320.642,

633Florida Statutes, "if the proposed additional . . . motor

643vehicle dealer is to be located in a county with a population of

656more than 300,000," as in the instant case, then any existing

668motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make whose licensed

677franchise location is within a radius of 12.5 miles of the

688proposed additional dealer has standing to file a protest within

698the meaning of Subsection (2)(a)1. of the statute.

70612. Respondent is an existing motor vehicle dealer who has

716standing to file a protest of the proposed new dealership in

727this case.

72913. The burden is therefore on Petitioners to prove that

739there is "inadequate representation" in the community or

747territory of the proposed new dealership, according to the

756criteria set forth in Subsection 320.642(2)(b), Florida

763Statutes.

76414. Petitioners made no appearance and presented no

772evidence at the final hearing. Petitioners failed to meet their

782burden of proof.

78515. The approval sought by Petitioners must therefore be

794denied.

795RECOMMENDATION

796Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

806Law, it is

809RECOMMENDED:

810That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

819enter a final order denying the establishment of Petitioners'

828proposed franchise.

830DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2009, in

840Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

844S

845LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

848Administrative Law Judge

851Division of Administrative Hearings

855The DeSoto Building

8581230 Apalachee Parkway

861Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

864(850) 488-9675

866Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

870www.doah.state.fl.us

871Filed with the Clerk of the

877Division of Administrative Hearings

881this 29th day of May, 2009.

887COPIES FURNISHED :

890Carl A. Ford, Director

894Division of Motor Vehicles

898Department of Highway Safety and

903Motor Vehicles

905Neil Kirkland Building, Room B-439

9102900 Apalachee Parkway

913Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

916Robin Lotane, General Counsel

920Department of Highway Safety and

925Motor Vehicles

927Neil Kirkman Building

9302900 Apalachee Parkway

933Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

936Jennifer Clark

938Department of Highway Safety and

943Motor Vehicles

945Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432

9502900 Apalachee Parkway

953Tallahassee, Florida 32344

956James Sursely

958Action Orlando Motorsports

961306 West Main Street

965Apopka, Florida 32712

968Gloria Ma

970El Sol Trading, Inc.,

974d/b/a Motobravo, Inc.

97719877 Quiroz Court

980City of Industry, California 91789

985Tina Wilson

987TGT Companies, Inc., d/b/a Extreme

992Motor Sales

9941918 South Orange Blossom Trail

999Apopka, Florida 32703

1002NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

1008All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

101815 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

1029to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

1040will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2009
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held May 18, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Date: 05/18/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for May 18, 2009; 1:00 p.m.; Orlando and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2009
Proceedings: Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2009
Proceedings: Protest of Intent to Establish a New Point Dealership filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2009
Proceedings: Agency referral

Case Information

Judge:
LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON
Date Filed:
03/12/2009
Date Assignment:
03/12/2009
Last Docket Entry:
07/09/2009
Location:
Orlando, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):