William Whittman v. United Auto Care, Inc.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2245 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2245 WILLIAM WHITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED AUTO CARE, INC.; PENSKE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA LLC; TOYOTA MOTOR INSURANCE COMPANY; TOYOTA INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS USA, LLC; TOYOTA MOTOR INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; PAG CHANTILLY M1 LLC, d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of Chantilly; PENSKE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; BERT O’NEAL; TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:21-cv-03156-JRR) Submitted: October 24, 2024 Decided: February 18, 2025 Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Whittman, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Joseph Mastro, SCHLOSSBERG MASTRO, Hagerstown, Maryland; James Leslie Hoyle, Richmond, Virginia, Robert Edward Worst, KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia; Jessica Lynn Farmer, USCA4 Appeal: 23-2245 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Patrick Garrett Selwood, WILMERHALE LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2245 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: William Whittman appeals the district court’s orders compelling Whittman to submit some of his claims to arbitration, dismissing his state law claims of conspiracy, fraud, and bad faith against some Defendants for failure to state a claim, and vacating its prior order of default judgment against the remaining Defendant and dismissing those claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Whittman’s motion to clarify and affirm the district court’s orders. Whittman v. United Auto Care, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-03156-JRR (D. Md. Nov. 2, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3