California Code, Vehicle Code - VEH § 3080

(a) Upon receiving a protest pursuant to Section 3070, 3072, 3074, 3075, or 3076, the board shall fix a time and place of hearing within 60 days of the order, and shall send by certified mail a copy of the order to the franchisor, the protesting franchisee, and all individuals and groups that have requested notification by the board of protests and decisions of the board.  The board or its executive director may, upon a showing of good cause, accelerate or postpone the date initially established for a hearing, but the hearing shall not be rescheduled more than 90 days after the board's initial order.  For the purpose of accelerating or postponing a hearing date, “good cause” includes, but is not limited to, the effects upon, and any irreparable harm to, the parties or interested persons or groups if the request for a change in hearing date is not granted.  The board or an administrative law judge designated by the board shall hear and consider the oral and documented evidence introduced by the parties and other interested individuals and groups, and the board shall make its decision solely on the record so made.  Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 11400) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and Sections 11507.3, 11507.6, 11507.7, 11511, 11511.5, 11513, 11514, 11515, and 11517 of the Government Code apply to these proceedings.

(b) In a hearing on a protest filed pursuant to Section 3070 or 3072, the franchisor shall have the burden of proof to establish that there is good cause to modify, replace, terminate, or refuse to continue a franchise.  The franchisee shall have the burden of proof to establish that there is good cause not to enter into a franchise establishing an additional recreational vehicle dealership or relocating an existing recreational vehicle dealership.

(c) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in a hearing on a protest alleging a violation of, or filed pursuant to, Section 3074, 3075, or 3076, the franchisee shall have the burden of proof, but the franchisor has the burden of proof to establish that a franchisee acted with intent to defraud the franchisor when that issue is material to a protest filed pursuant to Section 3075 or 3076.