A-25-0084 General Motors, LLC (Appellant) v. Nebraska Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board, an agency of the State of Nebraska, Joshua Eickmeier, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board, Chad Tessman, in his official capacity as Second Vice Chairperson of the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board, and Meyer Automotive, Inc., a Nebraska corporation.
Appeal from the District Court of Lancaster County, Judge Jodi L. Nelson
Attorneys: Adam J. Prochaska (Rembolt Ludtke LLP for Appellant), Mark T. Clouatre and Robert L. Wise (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP as Pro hac vice for Appellant), Kenneth A. Yoho (Asst. Attorney General for Appellee, Nebraska Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board), and Richard L. Rice and Jonathan J. Lederer (Crosby Guenzel LLP for Appellee, Meyer Automotive, Inc.)
Civil: Administrative application to terminate dealer sales and service agreements
Proceedings Below: Appellee determined that Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause to terminate Meyer Automotive’s dealer agreement, and the district court affirmed on appeal. On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The district court erred by finding that the Board’s statutorily-deficient composition did not violate Appellant’s due process rights; 2) The district court erred by finding that Appellant failed to prove that another franchise in the same line-make will become effective in the same community, without diminution of the franchisee’s service formerly provided, by concocting an unworkable, inappropriate new standard not required by Nebraska’s statute and rejected by another court interpreting an identical statutory provision; 3) The district court erred when it found good cause did not exist to terminate the Dealer Agreement of Appellee, Meyer; 4) The district court erred by finding Appellant failed to support and allocate sufficient product to Appellee, Meyer, which was capricious and unsupported by competent evidence; 5) The district court erred by finding a Appellant representative improved Appellee’s, Meyer’s, inventory position, as that finding was unsupported by competent evidence; 6) The district court erred by finding that Meyer sold substantially more units after the termination notice, which was unsupported by competent evidence; 7) The district court erred by not making a specific finding as to whether the good cause factors in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-1433(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7) support, negate or are neutral to a finding of a good cause to terminate; and 8) The district court erred by finding that Meyer substantially complied with the customer-satisfaction terms of the Dealer Agreement, as that finding was unsupported by competent evidence.