• Home
• Industries
• Motor Vehicle

---

Motor Vehicle

Motor Vehicle Franchise law involves automobile, truck and motorcycle dealers in complex commercial transactions, business and franchise disputes, operational issues and litigation.

As experienced franchise lawyers, Mulcahy LLP can help mitigate legal issues in owning a Motor Vehicle franchise. We have the knowledge needed to help clients identify the risks involved in buying a franchise. We can also provide clients with comprehensive legal guidance throughout their business endeavor. When franchisees are ready to sell their business or want to get out of a franchise contract, we can facilitate the sale or initiate discussions with the franchiser.

Our clients deal with the following issues in Motor Vehicle Franchise Law:

• Franchise Disputes
• Dealership Mergers & Acquisitions
• Transfer of Ownership
• Change of Management Turndowns
• Dealership Successions
• Terminations
• Litigation
• Add Points
• Audits
• Finance & Insurance
• Consumer Lawsuits

Motor Vehicle franchises are a profitable and stable business. You will provide consumers with a convenient and sought-after service. If you interested in learning more about owning and operating a Motor Vehicle franchise, contact us to schedule a consultation.

Related Articles

---

• 

  License to Sue? Court Rules That a Motor Vehicle Dealer Does Not Need a Dealer’s License to Bring a Statutory Claim for Termination without Good Cause

  California’s motor vehicle code allows dealers to bring suit against manufacturers for terminating the dealer without good cause.

  read more >>>

• 

  California Court Imposes Strict Product Liability On Car Dealer

  Earlier this week, in an unpublished opinion, a California appellate court imposed strict products liability on a Ventura County car dealership despite its limited role as a non-profiting, “pass-through” participant of a car sale between General Motors and the customer.

  Read More >>>

• 

  Court Refuses To Extend Patterson And Juarez Protections To Quasi-Franchise Confronted With Employment Misclassification Claims

  Court Refuses To Extend Patterson And Juarez Protections To Quasi-Franchise Confronted With Employment Misclassification Claims

  Read More >>>

• 

  Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), petition for cert. filed, No. 14-341 (September 22, 2014)

  The United States Supreme Court has recently been asked to again weigh in on whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a state law restricting the enforcement of terms in an arbitration agreement.

  Read More >>>

• 

  Mulcahy LLP Wins Significant Ninth Circuit Ruling on Behalf of Isuzu Motors, Providing Template for Franchisors

  Recently, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that should be of interest to any franchisor. Almost all franchisors require in their franchise agreements that their franchisees obtain their consent before transferring a franchise, with such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. For motor vehicle franchises, this requirement is also codified in state laws.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  Eagle Rider v. Eagle Rider Harley Rental of San Antonio

  (AAA, Los Angeles) the firm defended against a franchisee’s claim that his franchise was wrongfully terminated. The firm obtained a judgment in favor of the franchisor after a week-long arbitration hearing.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  American Isuzu v. Fladeboe

  (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, successfully prosecuted a vehicle dealer for trademark infringement after the dealer sued for breach of contract.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  Barnett’s v. American Suzuki

  (North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a vehicle dealer’s protest of the addition of a new dealer and claim of unfair allocation of product in violation of North Carolina law.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  Bosch v. Suzuki

  (California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm, on behalf of the distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm obtained a stipulated order dismissing the proceeding, with the dealer paying the firm’s client for its fees and expenses.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  Cascade v. American Suzuki

  (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended numerous claims asserted by a terminated vehicle dealer against the distributor and the dealer who replaced the terminated dealer.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  Childress v. Suzuki

  (Arizona Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles and obtained a dismissal of a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm then successfully handled the opposition to the dealer’s appeal.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  Continental Sales v. American Suzuki

  (Utah Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, opposed a vehicle dealer’s petition to prevent the relocation of another vehicle dealer of the same line make in the relevant market area.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  Fladeboe v. American Isuzu

  (Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, defending the claims of a vehicle dealer who alleged that the distributor had wrongfully withheld consent to the transfer of the franchise.

  Learn More >>>

• 

  LA Suzuki v. Suzuki

  (California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles when one of its dealers protested the addition of a new dealer. The firm’s handling of the matter led the dealer to dismiss its claims with prejudice during discovery.

  Learn More >>>