Parktown Imports v. Audi of America, No. SC 89611.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtZel M. Fischer
Citation278 S.W.3d 670
Docket NumberNo. SC 89611.
Decision Date17 March 2009
PartiesPARKTOWN IMPORTS, INC., Appellant, v. AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Respondent.
278 S.W.3d 670
PARKTOWN IMPORTS, INC., Appellant,
v.
AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Respondent.
No. SC 89611.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
March 17, 2009.

[278 S.W.3d 671]

Edwin G. Harvey, Matthew J. Landwehr, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Randall L. Oyler, James R. Vogler, Rachael M. Trummell, Rebecca Ray, Barack Ferrazzano Kirshbaum Nagelberg, LLP, Chicago, IL, David M. Harris, Dawn M. Johnson, Robert L. Duckels, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.

ZEL M. FISCHER, Judge.


Parktown Imports, Inc. appeals the Administrative Hearing Commission's ("AHC") decision to grant Audi of America, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Parktown's claim that Audi's establishment of a new Audi franchise was capricious, in bad faith and unconscionable. In reaching its decision, the AHC found that § 407.817, RSMo Supp.2007,1 was the only statute under which a franchisee could challenge the establishment of a new motor vehicle dealership within a relevant market area where the same line-make is represented and that the AHC was without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested because Parktown had brought its challenge under § 407.825(1). On appeal, Parktown claims that the AHC erred when it sustained Audi's motion, arguing that §§ 407.817 and 407.825(1) are not in conflict and that it is entitled to bring its claim against Audi under § 407.825(1).

Facts

This case stems from Audi's decision to grant Frank Bommarito Oldsmobile a franchise to establish a new Audi dealership in the western part of St. Louis County. Prior to the establishment of this new dealership, the only authorized Audi dealers in the St. Louis area were Parktown and Plaza Motors, Inc.

Leading up to the establishment of the third dealership, in September 2004, Audi notified Parktown and Plaza Motors that it had determined, through market research, that St. Louis could support a third dealership and that it was considering opening a new dealership in west St. Louis. Parktown replied that it had no interest in relocating and that it did not believe St. Louis could support a third dealership. Plaza Motors also declined the invitation.

In May 2005, Audi informed Parktown that if it built a new stand-alone facility designed by Audi, then Audi would abandon its plans for adding a third dealership in the St. Louis area. Parktown met with Audi at its corporate headquarters and rejected the offer. At the meeting, Audi suggested that if Parktown bought Plaza Motors, Audi would grant Parktown the right of first refusal on a new dealership, sustaining the number of Audi dealers in St. Louis at two. Parktown rejected both proposals.

In fall 2005, Audi told Parktown that it was no longer pursuing a third dealership in the St. Louis area.

In September 2006, Audi made a failed attempt to buy Plaza Motors. Upon its

278 S.W.3d 672

failure, Audi advised Parktown and Plaza Motors of its decision to establish a third dealership in the west St. Louis area. On March 20, 2007, Audi notified Parktown that it had awarded the new dealership to Bommarito. The new dealership would be located on the same road, approximately 10 miles east of Parktown's existing location.

On March 23, 2007, Parktown filed a complaint with the AHC to challenge the establishment of the Bommarito dealership under § 407.825(1), alleging that Audi's decision to establish a new dealership was not motivated by proper business considerations, but, rather, was a capricious, bad faith, or unconscionable retaliation against Parktown for refusing to move its existing facilities.

On April 13, 2007, Audi moved to dismiss Parktown's complaint. The AHC granted Audi's motion on May 10, 2007, finding that it was without jurisdiction because § 407.817, and not § 407.825(1), was the proper statute to challenge the establishment of a new dealership. The AHC also concluded that § 407.817, the later enacted and specific remedy for challenging the establishment of a new motor vehicle dealership, controls over the general provision, § 407.825(1).

After opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer and has jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 10.

Standard of Review

Whether the AHC properly sustained Audi's motion to dismiss is a question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 practice notes
  • JJM Sunrise Auto., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 601658-14.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 6, 2014
    ...Motorsports, Inc., 2014 WL 1092864 at *3–4, supra [citations omitted] ).Similarly, in Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of America, Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670 (Mo.2009), which involved a state motor vehicle franchise statute with a six-mile radius requirement, Audi sought to establish a new Audi de......
  • Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, No. SC 97833
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 31, 2020
    ...effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue." Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009). This Court resorts to other rules of statutory interpretation only when the plain meaning of the statute is ambiguous ......
  • Roesing v. Dir. Revenue, No. SC 97165
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 2019
    ..." State ex rel. Hillman v. Beger , 566 S.W.3d 600, 605-06 (Mo. banc 2019) (citing Parktown Imps., Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670, 672-73 (Mo. banc 2009) ). When this Court can ascertain the meaning of a statute from its plain text, there is no need to resort to canons of statuto......
  • State v. Lee, WD 83778
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 26, 2021
    ...statute at issue.’ " State v. McDonald , 626 S.W.3d 708, 713 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009) ). Appellate courts "resort ‘to other rules of statutory interpretation only when the plain meaning of the statute is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
75 cases
  • JJM Sunrise Auto., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 601658-14.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 6, 2014
    ...Motorsports, Inc., 2014 WL 1092864 at *3–4, supra [citations omitted] ).Similarly, in Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of America, Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670 (Mo.2009), which involved a state motor vehicle franchise statute with a six-mile radius requirement, Audi sought to establish a new Audi de......
  • Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, No. SC 97833
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 31, 2020
    ...effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue." Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009). This Court resorts to other rules of statutory interpretation only when the plain meaning of the statute is ambiguous ......
  • Roesing v. Dir. Revenue, No. SC 97165
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 2019
    ..." State ex rel. Hillman v. Beger , 566 S.W.3d 600, 605-06 (Mo. banc 2019) (citing Parktown Imps., Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670, 672-73 (Mo. banc 2009) ). When this Court can ascertain the meaning of a statute from its plain text, there is no need to resort to canons of statuto......
  • State v. Lee, WD 83778
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 26, 2021
    ...statute at issue.’ " State v. McDonald , 626 S.W.3d 708, 713 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009) ). Appellate courts "resort ‘to other rules of statutory interpretation only when the plain meaning of the statute is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT