Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—M.D. Fla.: Hyundai gets venue transfer in suit over the franchisor’s Accelerate Program and Complimentary Maintenance Program, (Oct 15, 2025)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

Car dealership brought suit alleging violations of Florida state law and a breach of the parties’ Franchise Agreement.

The federal district court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Florida filed by Hyundai Motor America Corporation (HMA) in a suit brought by a Hyundai dealership alleging that the Korean automaker’s American distributor and franchisor violated Florida laws and beached the parties’ Franchise Agreement. Upon weighing the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice the court found that a transfer of the action would benefit judicial economy considering there are multiple related cases pending in the Southern District of Florida. The court highlighted a related action that was recently transferred to the Southern District of Florida which involved similar claims brought by another Hyundai dealership by plaintiff’s counsel as it concluded convenience, justice, and efficiency considerations weighed in favor of transfer (Deerfield Automotive, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America Corp., No. 6:25-cv-01307-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2025)).

Background. Plaintiff Deerfield Automotive, LLC d/b/a King Hyundai is a dealer of Hyundai motor vehicles and defendant Hyundai Motor America Corporation is the franchisor. The entities are parties to a Hyundai Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (the “Franchise Agreement”) “pursuant to which [Plaintiff] operates a dealership for the sale and service of Hyundai Brand motor vehicles” in Deerfield Beach, Florida (the “Dealership”). HMA’s parent company, Hyundai Motor Company (“HMC”), manufactures both Hyundai and Genesis motor vehicles.

Initially, Genesis motor vehicles were produced as part of the Hyundai line-make and Hyundai dealerships were to sell Genesis vehicles. in 2017, HMA announced that it would create a subsidiary of HMA, Genesis Motor America, LLC (“GMA”), that would become the sole distributor of Genesis motor vehicles. In Florida, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FDHSMV) rejected GMA's license application, finding it violated § 320.6415 of the state’s motor vehicle dealer law, which required offering Genesis dealership agreements to all existing Florida Hyundai dealers on the same terms as their Hyundai agreements. GMA subsequently agreed to offer such agreements to all existing Hyundai dealers in Florida, and FDHSMV thus granted GMA the sought-after license.

The parties subsequently entered into a Genesis Dealer Agreement that became effective on December 17, 2018. Roughly one year later, HMA introduced the "Accelerate Program," which King Hyundai alleges was unlawfully designed to indirectly remove the Genesis line from most Hyundai dealers by awarding it only to select dealers and requiring those dealers to have stand-alone Genesis facilities. This included conditioning dealer margins on compliance with objectives like costly facility upgrades and separating Genesis operations.

In February 2020, HMA implemented a "Complimentary Maintenance Program" which applied to sales of all new Hyundai vehicles, requiring dealers to provide free maintenance for three years or 36,000 miles. King Hyundai alleges the reimbursement rates set by HMA are substantially below the rates permitted by law.

King Hyundai brought a suit against HMA under the dealer law alleging the Accelerate Program violates various subsections of Florida Statute § 320.64, the reimbursement rates Defendant has established under its Complimentary Maintenance Program violate Florida Statute § 320.696; and that HMA breached the Franchise Agreement through its implementation of the Accelerate Program and its Complimentary Maintenance Program. HMA moved to transfer the venue from the Middle District of Florida to the Southern District of Florida.

Venue Transfer. Before it began its analysis, the court highlighted that the District recently granted HMA’s motions to transfer two cases that are closely related to the instant case to the Southern District of Florida. On May 29, 2025, the Middle District of Florida granted HMA’s motion to transfer venue in Potamkin Hyundai, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America Corp, a case which “alleg[ed] eight claims under Florida law related to the parties’ Hyundai Dealer Sales and Service Agreement, Plaintiff’s ability to distribute Hyundai and Genesis vehicles, Defendant’s Accelerate Performance Bonus Program, and Defendant’s Complimentary Maintenance Program reimbursements.”

Next, the court laid out that the Southern District of Florida has personal jurisdiction over HMA, as it is the party requesting the transfer. Also, venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as the dealership is located within Broward County, which falls within the Southern District of Florida.

The court next analyzed the factors related to the interests of convenience and justice. With respect to convenience of the witnesses, the court first pointed to HMA’s contention that “most, if not all, of the relevant... witnesses reside [in] or regularly conduct business in the Southern District of Florida.” HMA also confirmed it “is not aware of any potential witnesses, documents, or facts connecting this dispute to the Middle District of Florida.” The court found this factor “tilts, if at all,” in favor of transfer. The court also found the next factor, the location of relevant documents and ease of access to sources of proof also weighed in favor of transfer given that the Dealership where the subject programs were implemented is found within the Southern District of Florida, and neither party has pointed to the existence of any relevant evidence in the Middle District.

The convenience of the parties also weighed in favor of a transfer, as the King dealership and its counsel each have ties to the Southern District of Florida. The King dealership’s principal place of business is in the Southern District of Florida. Additionally, the King dealership’s counsel is also litigating the Potamkin Actions in that District.

HMA also asserted that the Southern District of Florida is the locus of operative facts, citing that the Dealership is in that District, and that “[Plaintiff’s] claims relate to the operation of that [D]ealership, and, in particular[,] the effect of certain Hyundai programs on its [D]ealership....” The court also noted that in the Potamkin HMA Action, the court found the Southern District of Florida to be the locus of operative facts.

The court indicated that availability of the process to compel unwilling witnesses, the relative means of parties and the forum's familiarity with governing law were all neutral factors.

Finally, the court addressed that there is no connection between Plaintiff’s choice of forum and the events underlying the cause of action. The court noted that it had accorded the requisite deference to the dealership’s choice of forum, but, this deference is “clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Ultimately, the court concluded that “Transfer of this action would benefit judicial economy considering there are multiple related cases pending in the Southern District of Florida.”

The Case is No. 6:25-cv-01307-PGB-LHP.

Judge: Byron, P.

Attorneys: John W. Forehand (Kurkin Forehand Brandes LLP) for Deerfield Automotive, LLC. Hans Helmut Hertell (Hogan Lovells US LLP) for Hyundai Motor America Corp.

Companies: Deerfield Automotive, LLC; Hyundai Motor America Corp.

Cases: FranchisingDistribution FloridaNews