Piano
Piano v. State ex rel. New Motor Vehicle Board
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Klein, J.
Appellant Albert Piano, doing business as A1 Piano Datsun (Piano), appeals from a superior court judgment entered January 12, 1979, denying petitions for writs of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) 1 and administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5).
Piano prayed for a writ of mandate in the superior court ordering respondent State of California, by and through the New Motor Vehicle Board (Board) to set aside its decision on Piano’s protest, and enter an order not permitting real party in interest Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A. (Nissan) to establish a dealership. Piano also requested the court to mandate the Board to promulgate meaningful standards relat *415 ing to “good cause” under Vehicle Code section 3063 3 through rules and regulations.
Background Information
On November 30, 1977, Nissan gave notice pursuant to section 3062 4 of its intention to establish another Datsun motor vehicle dealership in Simi Valley. On December 12, 1977, Piano, who had the Piano Datsun dealership in Thousand Oaks, some 12 miles distant, filed a protest with the Board.
A hearing was held between March 21 and March 31, 1978, pursuant to section 3066 5 before a hearing…