11-003649 Ride Green Florida, Llc vs. Puma Cycles Corporation And Wild Hogs Scooters And Motorsports, Llc
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 22, 2012.


View Dockets  
Summary: Evidence fails to establish that existing dealer is not providing adequate representation of line-make.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8RIDE GREEN FLORIDA, LLC , )

13)

14Petitioner , )

16)

17vs. ) Case Nos. 11 - 3649

24) 11 - 4337

28PUMA CYCLES CORPORATION AND )

33WILD HOGS SCOOTERS AND )

38MOTORSPORTS, LLC , )

41)

42Respondents . )

45)

46RECOMMENDED ORDER

48On January 24, 2012, an administrative hearing in th e s e

60case s was conducted in Tallahassee, Florida, before William F.

70Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) , Division of

77Administrative Hearings (DOAH ) .

82APPEARANCES

83For Petitioner: R. Craig Spickard, Esquire

89John W. Forehand, Esquire

93Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP

97800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B

103Tallahassee, F lorida 32303

107For Respondent s : (No appearance)

113STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

117The issue in the se case s is whether two applications for new

130point franchise motor vehicle dealerships filed by Puma Cycles

139Corporation and Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC

147(Re spondents) , should be approved.

152PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

154By Notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly

162(Volume 37, Number 24 ; June 17, 2011), the Department of Highway

173Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) gave notice that Puma

182Cycles Corporation (Puma) intended to establish a new point

191franchise motor vehicle dealership at Wild Hogs Scooters and

200Motorsports , LLC (Wild Hogs) , located at 3311 West Lake Mary

210Boulevard, Units 1 - 2, Lake Mary, Seminole County, Florida 32746 ,

221for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Foshan City Fosti

231Motorcycle Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (line - make FSTI). Ride Green

241Florida , LLC (Petitioner) , filed a challenge to the establishment

250of the Lake Mary dealership and requested an administrative

259hearing. By letter dated July 2 1, 2011, the Department forwarded

270the request to DOAH, which designated the hearing request as Case

281No. 11 - 3649. An Initial Order was entered to which the

293Petitioner filed a response. Based on the response, on August 2,

3042011, a Notice of Hearing was issu ed wherein the hearing was

316scheduled for January 24 through 26, 2012.

323By Notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly

331(Volume 37, Number 30 ; July 29, 2011), the Department gave notice

342that Puma intended to establish a new point franchise motor

352veh icle dealership at the Wild Hogs location at 1805 West

363Fairbanks Avenue, Winter Park, Orange County, Florida 32789 , for

372the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Foshan City Fosti

381Motorcycle Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (line - make FSTI).

389The Petitioner filed a cha llenge to the establishment of the

400Winter Park dealership and requested an administrative hearing.

408By letter dated August 22, 2011, the Department forwarded the

418request to DOAH, which designated the hearing request as Case

428No. 11 - 4337. An Initial Order w as entered to which the

441Petitioner filed a response. Based on the response, the two

451cases were co nsolidated on August 31, 2011.

459The consolidated cases were transferred to the undersigned

467ALJ on January 18, 2012 .

473The hearing commenced as scheduled on Janua ry 24, 2012, at

484which time no representative appeare d on behalf of the

494Respondents.

495The Petitioner presented the testimony of one witness, the

504owner of Ride Green Florida, LLC. There being no further

514witnesses, and with no appearance on behalf of the Resp ondents,

525the record was clo sed and the hearing concluded.

534Immediately after the hearing had concluded, an individual

542attending the hearing on behalf of Puma entered the hearing room

553and advised that he had been waiting outside the hearing room

564pursuant to the instr uctions of a security officer.

573As set forth in the Notice of Hearing, all parties have the

585right to be represented by counsel or other qualified

594representative, in accordance with Florida Administrative Code

601Rule 28 - 106.106. Following a discussio n with the individual

612attending on behalf of Puma, the hearing was reconvened, at which

623time the ALJ determined that the individual was not a Florida -

635licensed attorney and could not meet the requirements to serve as

646a qualified representative during the he aring , and the record was

657closed.

658No transcript of the hearing was filed. Neither party filed

668a proposed recommended order.

672FINDING OF FACTS

6751. The Petitioner has a franchise agreement to sell line -

686make FSTI motor vehicles, the line - make proposed to be s old at

700the two Wild Hogs locations at issue in these cases.

7102. The location of the Petitioner ' s dealership at 700 West

722Fairbanks Avenue, Winter Park, Florida, is within 12.5 miles of

732both Wild Hogs locations.

7363. There was no evidence presented at the h earing to

747establish that the Petitioner is not providing adequate

755representation of line - make FSTI motor vehicles.

763CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

7664. D OAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject

777matter of this proceeding. See §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla . Stat .

790(2011). 1/

7925. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes , provides , in relevant

800part , as follows:

803320.642 Dealer licenses in areas previously

809served; procedure. --

812(1) Any licensee who proposes to establish

819an additional motor vehicle dealership or

825permit the r elocation of an existing dealer

833to a location within a community or territory

841where the same line - make vehicle is presently

850represented by a franchised motor vehicle

856dealer or dealers shall give written notice

863of its intention to the department. The

870notic e must state:

874(a) The specific location at which the

881additional or relocated motor vehicle

886dealership will be established.

890(b) The date on or after which the licensee

899intends to be engaged in business with the

907additional or relocated motor vehicle deal er

914at the proposed location.

918(c) The identity of all motor vehicle

925dealers who are franchised to sell the same

933line - make vehicle with licensed locations in

941the county and any contiguous county to the

949county where the additional or relocated

955motor vehicle dealer is proposed to be

962located.

963(d) The names and addresses of the dealer -

972operator and principal investors in the

978proposed additional or relocated motor

983vehicle dealership.

985Immediately upon receipt of the notice the

992department shall cause a notice to be

999published in the Florida Administrative

1004Weekly. The published notice must state that

1011a petition or complaint by any dealer with

1019standing to protest pursuant to subsection

1025(3) must be filed within 30 days following

1033the date of publication of the notice in the

1042Florida Administrative Weekly. The published

1047notice must describe and identify the

1053proposed dealership sought to be licensed,

1059and the department shall cause a copy of the

1068notice to be mailed to those dealers

1075identified in the licensee ' s notice und er

1084paragraph (c). The licensee shall pay a fee

1092of $75 and a service charge of $2.50 for each

1102publication. Proceeds from the fee and

1108service charge shall be deposited into the

1115Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund.

1120(2)(a) An application for a motor vehicl e

1128dealer license in any community or territory

1135shall be denied when:

11391. A timely protest is filed by a presently

1148existing franchised motor vehicle dealer

1153with standing to protest as defined in

1160subsection (3); and

11632. The licensee fails to show that the

1171existing franchised dealer or dealers who

1177register new motor vehicle retail sales or

1184retail leases of the same line - make in the

1194community or territory of the proposed

1200dealership are not providing adequate

1205representation of such line - make motor

1212vehicles in such community or territory. The

1219burden of proof in establishing inadequate

1225representation shall be on the licensee.

1231(b) In determining whether the existing

1237franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers

1243are providing adequate representation in the

1249communit y or territory for the line - make, the

1259department may consider evidence which may

1265include, but is not limited to:

12711. The impact of the establishment of the

1279proposed or relocated dealer on the

1285consumers, public interest, existing dealers,

1290and the licensee ; provided, however, that

1296financial impact may only be considered with

1303respect to the protesting dealer or dealers.

13102. The size and permanency of investment

1317reasonably made and reasonable obligations

1322incurred by the existing dealer or dealers to

1330perform their obligations under the dealer

1336agreement.

13373. The reasonably expected market

1342penetration of the line - make motor vehicle

1350for the community or territory involved,

1356after consideration of all factors which may

1363affect said penetration, including, but not

1369l imited to, demographic factors such as age,

1377income, education, size class preference,

1382product popularity, retail lease

1386transactions, or other factors affecting

1391sales to consumers of the community or

1398territory.

13994. Any actions by the licensees in denying

1407i ts existing dealer or dealers of the same

1416line - make the opportunity for reasonable

1423growth, market expansion, or relocation,

1428including the availability of line - make

1435vehicles in keeping with the reasonable

1441expectations of the licensee in providing an

1448adequat e number of dealers in the community

1456or territory.

14585. Any attempts by the licensee to coerce

1466the existing dealer or dealers into

1472consenting to additional or relocated

1477franchises of the same line - make in the

1486community or territory.

14896. Distance, travel t ime, traffic patterns,

1496and accessibility between the existing dealer

1502or dealers of the same line - make and the

1512location of the proposed additional or

1518relocated dealer.

15207. Whether benefits to consumers will likely

1527occur from the establishment or relocation of

1534the dealership which cannot be obtained by

1541other geographic or demographic changes or

1547expected changes in the community or

1553territory.

15548. Whether the protesting dealer or dealers

1561are in substantial compliance with their

1567dealer agreement.

15699. Whether there is adequate interbrand and

1576intrabrand competition with respect to said

1582line - make in the community or territory and

1591adequately convenient consumer care for the

1597motor vehicles of the line - make, including

1605the adequacy of sales and service facilities.

16121 0. Whether the establishment or relocation

1619of the proposed dealership appears to be

1626warranted and justified based on economic and

1633marketing conditions pertinent to dealers

1638competing in the community or territory,

1644including anticipated future changes.

164811. The volume of registrations and service

1655business transacted by the existing dealer or

1662dealers of the same line - make in the relevant

1672community or territory of the proposed

1678dealership.

1679(3) An existing franchised motor vehicle

1685dealer or dealers shall have standing to

1692protest a proposed additional or relocated

1698motor vehicle dealer when the existing motor

1705vehicle dealer or dealers have a franchise

1712agreement for the same line - make vehicle to

1721be sold or serviced by the proposed

1728additional or relocated motor ve hicle dealer

1735and are physically located so as to meet or

1744satisfy any of the following requirements or

1751conditions :

1753(a) If the proposed additional or relocated

1760motor vehicle dealer is to be located in a

1769county with a population of less than 300,000

1778accord ing to the most recent data of the

1787United States Census Bureau or the data of

1795the Bureau of Economic and Business Research

1802of the University of Florida:

18071. The proposed additional or relocated

1813motor vehicle dealer is to be located in the

1822area designated or described as the area of

1830responsibility, or such similarly designated

1835area, including the entire area designated as

1842a multiple - point area, in the franchise

1850agreement or in any related document or

1857commitment with the existing motor vehicle

1863dealer or dea lers of the same line - make as

1874such agreement existed upon October 1, 1988;

18812. The existing motor vehicle dealer or

1888dealers of the same line - make have a licensed

1898franchise location within a radius of 20

1905miles of the location of the proposed

1912additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer;

1918or

19193. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or

1926dealers of the same line - make can establish

1935that during any 12 - month period of the 36 -

1946month period preceding the filing of the

1953licensee ' s application for the proposed

1960dealership, the dealer or its predecessor

1966made 25 percent of its retail sales of new

1975motor vehicles to persons whose registered

1981household addresses were located within a

1987radius of 20 miles of the location of the

1996proposed additional or relocated motor

2001vehicle dealer; p rovided the existing dealer

2008is located in the same county or any county

2017contiguous to the county where the additional

2024or relocated dealer is proposed to be

2031located.

2032(b) If the proposed additional or relocated

2039motor vehicle dealer is to be located in a

2048co unty with a population of more than 300,000

2058according to the most recent data of the

2066United States Census Bureau or the data of

2074the Bureau of Economic and Business Researc h

2082of the University of Florida:

20871. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or

2094dealers of the same line - make have a

2103licensed franchise location within a radius

2109of 12.5 miles of the location of the proposed

2118additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer ;

2124or

21252. Any existing motor vehicle dealer or

2132dealers of the same line - make can establish

2141that during any 12 - month period of the 36 -

2152month period preceding the filing of the

2159licensee ' s application for the proposed

2166dealership, such dealer or its predecessor

2172made 25 percent of its retail sales of new

2181motor vehicles to persons whose registered

2187household addresses were located within a

2193radius of 12.5 miles of the location of the

2202proposed additional or relocated motor

2207vehicle dealer; provided such existing dealer

2213is located in the same county or any county

2222contiguous to the county where the additional

2229or r elocated dealer is proposed to be

2237located.

2238(4) The department ' s decision to deny

2246issuance of a license under this section

2253shall remain in effect for a period of 12

2262months. The department shall not issue a

2269license for the proposed additional or

2275relocated motor vehicle dealer until a final

2282decision by the department is rendered

2288determining that the application for the

2294motor vehicle dealer ' s license should be

2302granted. ( e mphasis added ) .

23096. The Respondents in th e s e case s are the licensees. See

2323§§ 320.60(8 ) and 320.61, Fla . Stat.

23317. By location within 12.5 miles of the proposed Wild Hogs

2342locations, the Petitioner is an existing franchised motor vehicle

2351dealer with standing to protest the establishment of the new

2361point franchise motor vehicle dealerships at issu e in these

2371consolidated cases.

23738. The Respondent s presented no evidence that the

2382Petitioner is not providing adequate sales representation within

2390the community or territory of the line - make FSTI motor vehicle s .

2404RECOMMENDATION

2405Based on the foregoing F inding of Fact s and Conclusions of

2417Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and

2428Motor Vehicles enter a f inal o rder denying the two applications

2440filed by the Respondents to establish new point franchise motor

2450vehicle dealerships at Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports , LLC ,

2459for the sale of line - make FSTI motorcycles.

2468DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February , 2012 , in

2478Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

2482S

2483WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

2486Administrative Law Judge

2489Div ision of Administrative Hearings

2494The DeSoto Building

24971230 Apalachee Parkway

2500Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

2505(850) 488 - 9675

2509Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

2515www.doah.state.fl.us

2516Filed with the Clerk of the

2522Division of Administrative Hearings

2526this 22nd day of Feb ruary , 2012 .

2534ENDNOTE

25351/ All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2011 version,

2546unless otherwise indicated.

2549COPIES FURNISHED:

2551Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk

2555Department of Highway Safety

2559and Motor Vehicles

2562Neil Kirkman Building, Room A - 430

25692900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61

2575Tallahassee, Florida 32399

2578Jason Rupp

2580Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC

25863311 West Lake Mary Boulevard

2591Units 1 2

2594Lake Mary, Florida 32746

2598Josef Stutz

2600Puma Cycles Corporation

26031550 South Sinclair Street

2607Anaheim, Cali fornia 92806

2611R. Craig Spickard, Esquire

2615Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP

2619800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B

2625Tallahassee, Florida 32303

2628cspickard@kfb - law.com

2631Sandra C. Lambert, Interim Director

2636Division of Motor Vehicles

2640Department of Highway Safety

2644and M otor Vehicles

2648Neil Kirkman Building, Room B - 439

26552900 Apalachee Parkway

2658Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0635

2663Steve Hurm, General Counsel

2667Department of Highway Safety

2671and Motor Vehicles

2674Neil Kirkman Building

26772900 Apalachee Parkway

2680Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0500

2685NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

2691All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

270115 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

2712to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

2723will issue the Fin al Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held January 24, 2012). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 01/24/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 01/18/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 24 through 26, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL; amended as to addition of consolidated case).
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 11-3649 and 11-4337).
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2011
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 24 through 26, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (R. Spickard) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 07/22/2011
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/22/2011
Proceedings: Petition or Complaint Protesting Establishment of Dealership filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/22/2011
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.

Case Information

Judge:
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Date Filed:
07/22/2011
Date Assignment:
01/18/2012
Last Docket Entry:
04/09/2012
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):