Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 26 The New Motor Vehicle Board ("NMVB") violated due process based on this most basic of fundamental pillars of a fair and impartial judge. In summary, the NMVB was composed of competing interests with an imbalanced number of members of each side. The court held that the institutional imbalance constituted a violation of due process. Likewise, the institutional imbalance between mobilehome park owners or other landlords and tenants constitutes an institutional imbalance which most clearly, indeed blatantly, violates due process of law. The court held that the car dealers are biased not solely because they are members of the dealer -class of litigants and are thus per se constitutionally ineligible to sit on the Board. What the court held is that the combination of (1) the mandated dealer -Board members, (2) the lack of any counterbalance in mandated manufacturer members, (3) the nature of the adversaries in all cases (dealers v. manufacturers), and (4) the nature of the controversy in all cases (dispute between dealer and manufacturer) deprives a manufacturer -litigant of procedural due process, because the state does not furnish an impartial tribunal (American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 993). The same failure to comport with due process lies in the instant case. The tenant members of the commission are mandated; there must be an equal number of competing landlords to push the size of the rent board to nine members. Historically, the NMVB was established in 1973 and given jurisdiction to resolve controversies between new car dealers and manufacturers, pursuant to Vehicle Code § 3060, which provides that a new car franchisor shall not "terminate or refuse to continue any existing franchise" without reasons constituting, "good cause." Of critical import was that the Legislature required that four of its nine members shall be new car dealers. Vehicle Code § 3001. See generally, Chevrolet Motor Division v. NMVB (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 533, 536 [194 Cal.Rptr. 270], cert. den., 465 U.S. 1102 [80 L.Ed.2d 129, 104 S.Ct. 1597, 15981.] The purpose of the legislation was, inter alia, to protect dealers. The reasons why dealers were included on the board was to keep a check on the manufacturers. Thus, the dealers were present to watchdog or check the practices of the manufacturers, not just those manufacturers with whom there were actual disputes. Togas v. American Honda Motor Co. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 506, n.7. [Vehicle Code] §3000 provides that' [there is in the Department of Motor Vehicles a New Motor Vehicle Board, which consists of nine members.' 31 "Section 1, 39, of Stats. 1973, c. 996, p. 1964, provided: ¶ 'Section 1. The Legislature finds and declares that the distribution and sale of new motor vehicles in the State of California vitally affects the general economy of the state and the public welfare and that in order to promote the public welfare and in the exercise of its police power, it is necessary to regulate and to license vehicle dealers, manufacturers, manufacturer branches, distributors, distributor branches, and representatives of vehicle manufacturers and distributors doing business in California in order to avoid undue control of the independent new motor vehicle dealer by the vehicle manufacturer or distributor and to insure that dealers fulfill their obligations under their franchises and provide adequate and sufficient -26-