Appeal Court Decision 1

Appeal Court Decision

Appellant car dealership owner sought review of a decision of the Superior Court, Orange County (California) that granted summary judgment in favor of respondent car manufacturer because appellant, by not taking his breach of contract claim to the New Motor Vehicle Board, had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Appellant brought the action against respondent for breach of contract.

Overview: business attorneys

Appellant car dealership owner brought an action against respondent car manufacturer for breach of contract because respondent would not approve the sale of appellant's dealership to a third party. Summary judgment was entered in favor of respondent because appellant, by not taking his breach of contract claim to the New Motor Vehicle Board (the board), had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Appellant sought review. In reversing the decision, the court held that appellant's breach of contract action was not subject to an exhaustion requirement. Respondent did not point to the existence of any set of regulations needing uniform interpretation, how board involvement could resolve any factual issues, or how it could provide a record for subsequent judicial review. The court found that the legislature never intended the board to exclusively occupy the field of claims between dealers and manufacturers. As a result, exhaustion was not required even for claims otherwise within the purview of the board's authority.

Outcome

The court reversed the decision that granted summary judgment in favor of respondent car manufacturer, holding that appellant's breach of contract action was not subject to an exhaustion requirement. The court ruled that although a claim could come within the jurisdiction of the New Motor Vehicle Board, that did not mean that it was one appropriate for prior resort to administrative process under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.