Could Chrysler Be Kicked Out Of California?
About two months ago, we heard that Chrysler’s “prototype” Motor Village dealership in the Los Angeles area had been hit with a complaint [ PDF] from the California New Car Dealer’s association, arguing that it violated state laws against manufacturer-owned dealerships. The store, a test bed for what Chrysler terms “new retail concepts,” is in fact a partnership between Chrysler and LaBrea ChryslerJeep, making it appear to fit a legal loophole allowing OEM partnerships in retail ventures. But the CNCDA argues that Chrysler is undercharging for rent on the dealership building which it owns, and according to Automotive News [sub], the California Department of Motor Vehicle’s New Motor Vehicle Board just voted unanimously to open a formal investigation into the situation. And the stakes couldn’t be much higher, as AN reports:
If the DMV finds that Chrysler violated state law, the automaker could have its business license in California suspended or revoked.
While suspension or revocation of Chrysler’s California business license would be a huge blow, it’s not clear how likely it is to happen. After all, the dealers who are suing Chrysler say they don’t want to put themselves out of business, and have obvious reasons for not doing so. Says Peter Welch, president of the CNDA:
From our perspective, there’s been a clear violation, and what I heard today underscored it. We obviously don’t want the department to close them down because that would adversely affect our 103 Chrysler dealers, but we can’t have rogue manufacturers not following the law and intentionally trying to circumvent it through sham devices to meet whatever the flavor-of-the-month new marketing strategy is.
But if you dig into the complaint, it’s not at all clear what the CNCDA wants, precisely. Here’s what the complaint requests:
Petitioner is not a licensee of DMV and does not request the Board to refer this matter to a gearing officer or attempt to mediate, arbitrate or otherwise resolve the matter because this Petition does not involve a dispute between Petitioner and Respondent. Rather, Petitioner requests the board itself, both public and dealer members, to exercise its statutory oversight responsibility by considering the herein described acts and practices of Respondent as they relate to the Legislature’s statutory scheme to ensure fair competition and protect the public. After careful consideration, Petitioner respectfully requests:
1. That the Board provide relief available under subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(3) of Vehicle Code Section 3050 by directing DMV to conduct an investigation of the matters described herein and/or order the DMV to exercise its authority and power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the motor manufacturer license of Chrysler Group LLC; and
2. For such further relief as the Board deems appropriate.
Turning to the California Vehicle Code, we find that the CNCDA invoked clauses one and three of the following “powers and duties” of the NMVB:
(1) Direct the department to conduct investigation of matters that the board deems reasonable, and make a written report on the results of the investigation to the board within the time specified by the board.
(2) Undertake to mediate, arbitrate, or otherwise resolve any honest difference of opinion or viewpoint existing between any member of the public and any new motor vehicle dealer, manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor branch, or representative.
(3) Order the department to exercise any and all authority or power that the department may have with respect to the issuance, renewal, refusal to renew, suspension, or revocation of the license of any new motor vehicle dealer, manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, distributor branch, or representative as that license is required under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11700) of Division 5.
What does this tell us? Despite the CNCDA’s insistence that it doesn’t want Chrysler booted from the Golden State, it specifically chose not to invoke the clause intended to “resolve any honest difference of opinion or viewpoint.” Which, if this were a remotely amicable dispute, they would have, as Chrysler’s defense hinges on the exemptions for partnership and dealer training. And, reading through the CNCDA’s conclusions, it’s clear there’s something going on here besides one Chrysler-owned store. This conflict has historical context.
The past three years have been extremely challenging for California Chrysler dealers – more than 30 of them were forced to close their doors due to the collapse of Chrysler Financial and the recession. During that time, and additional 32 California Chrysler dealers were rejected and terminated by Chrysler LLC during its bankruptcy — but not Chrysler-owned LaBrea Avenue Motor Inc! … California’s remaining independently-owned and operated Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep dealers are fierce competitors but they cannot fairly compete against a Chrysler-owned dealership in their own backyard — especially a $30 million plus behemoth operating with little or no rent charge. The Legislature crafted a well thought out regulatory scheme to deal with unfair auto manufacturer competition and Respondent is apparently thumbing its nose at it.
So, this is part complaint, part payback. And remember, Chrysler dealer members of the CNCDA may want to prevent a suspension or revocation of Chrysler’s California business license, but there’s more to the CNCDA than just Chrysler dealers. Meanwhile, the matter is in the hands of the DMV board now… and we’ll be keeping an eye out for their investigation’s findings.
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- 3SpeedAutomatic Thunderbird Production Numbers:1971 - 36,0551972 - 57,8141973 - 87,2691974 - 58,4431975 - 42,6851976 - 52,9351977 - 318,1401978 - 352,7511979 - 284,141 1980 - 156,803 1981 - 86,693 1982 - 45,142 1983 - 121,999 1984 - 170,533 1985 - 151,852 1986 - 163,965 Looks like the T'Birds on the Torino frame sold like gang busters ('77 thru '79).
- Jeanbaptiste Any variant of “pizza” flavored combos. I only eat these on car trips and they are just my special gut wrenching treat.
- Nrd515 Usually for me it's been Arby's for pretty much forever, except when the one near my house dosed me with food poisoning twice in about a year. Both times were horrible, but the second time was just so terrible it's up near the top of my medical horror stories, and I have a few of those. Obviously, I never went to that one again. I'm still pissed at Arby's for dropping Potato Cakes, and Culver's is truly better anyway. It will be Arby's fish for my "cheat day", when I eat what I want. No tartar sauce and no lettuce on mine, please. And if I get a fish and a French Dip & Swiss? Keep the Swiss, and the dip, too salty. Just the meat and the bread for me, thanks. The odds are about 25% that they will screw one or both of them up and I will have to drive through again to get replacement sandwiches. Culver's seems to get my order right many times in a row, but if I hurry and don't check my order, that's when it's screwed up and garbage to me. My best friend lives on Starbucks coffee. I don't understand coffee's appeal at all. Both my sister and I hate anything it's in. It's like green peppers, they ruin everything they touch. About the only things I hate more than coffee are most condiments, ranked from most hated to..who cares..[list=1][*]Tartar sauce. Just thinking about it makes me smell it in my head. A nod to Ranch here too. Disgusting. [/*][*]Mayo. JEEEEZUS! WTF?[/*][*]Ketchup. Sweet puke tasting sludge. On my fries? Salt. [/*][*]Mustard. Yikes. Brown, yellow, whatever, it's just awful.[/*][*]Pickles. Just ruin it from the pickle juice. No. [/*][*]Horsey, Secret, whatever sauce. Gross. [/*][*]American Cheese. American Sleeze. Any cheese, I don't want it.[/*][*]Shredded lettuce. I don't hate it, but it's warm and what's the point?[/*][*]Raw onion. Totally OK, but not something I really want. Grilled onions is a whole nother thing, I WANT those on a burger.[/*][*]Any of that "juice" that Subway and other sandwich places want to put on. NO, HELL NO! Actually, move this up to #5. [/*][/list=1]
- SPPPP It seems like a really nice car that's just still trying to find its customer.
- MRF 95 T-Bird I owned an 87 Thunderbird aka the second generation aero bird. It was a fine driving comfortable and very reliable car. Quite underrated compared to the GM G-body mid sized coupes since unlike them they had rack and pinion steering and struts on all four wheels plus fuel injection which GM was a bit late to the game on their mid and full sized cars. When I sold it I considered a Mark VII LSC which like many had its trouble prone air suspension deleted and replaced with coils and struts. Instead I went for a MN-12 Thunderbird.
Yeah, California businesses are going to get the higher electricity rates they have been clamoring for, too: http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/04/69-companies-leave-california-in-first-quarter-fastest-rate-ever/
Fruits of the electric deregulation begun under Gov. Pete Wilson, I suppose.