Automotive Management Group, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd

In Automotive Management Group, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1002, the manufacturer moved to dismiss a dealer's protest as untimely, and the dealer retorted the manufacturer should be estopped from invoking the time requirements. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on the dismissal motion. On appeal, the dealer argued the dismissal procedure was improper because there was no provision in the Administrative Procedure Act for a motion to dismiss. (Id. at pp. 1011, 1012.) The appellate court rejected the dealer's argument, stating: " 'A proceeding before an administrative officer or board is adequate if the basic requirements of notice and opportunity for hearing are met.' 'The sufficiency of the notice and hearing is determined by considering the purpose of the procedure, its effect on the rights asserted, and other circumstances.' Although the dealer argues that the Board should have accepted the petition for filing, and then adjudicated the merits of the timeliness issue, we believe that permitting the ALJ to hear the issue as a 'motion to dismiss' was fair. A hearing was held. The dealer was permitted to introduce evidence. Four witnesses testified. Twenty-two exhibits were introduced. Thus, it seems quite clear that the dealer was afforded an opportunity to be heard consistent with the requirements of due process. "In addition, a motion to dismiss was utilized in British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. 1987 194 Cal. App. 3d 81 239 Cal. Rptr. 280. In that case, Maserati terminated the British Motors franchise. Over one year later, British Motors protested the termination. Maserati then filed a motion to dismiss the protest on the grounds that it was untimely. The motion was denied by the board. Although British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd., supra, 194 Cal. App. 3d 81 did not analyze the propriety of the motion to dismiss procedure, it is noteworthy that the procedure was employed in that case, and that its propriety was never questioned by the appellate court or the parties." (Automotive Management Group, Inc., supra, 20 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1012.)