William Whittman v. Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA LLC

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

William Whittman v. Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA LLC

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1608 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1608

WILLIAM WHITTMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA LLC; UNITED AUTO CARE, INC.; 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,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

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: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1608 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

William Whittman, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Lynn Farmer, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Washington, D.C.; James Leslie Hoyle, Richmond, Virginia, Robert Edward Worst, KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1608 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

William Whittman seeks to appeal the district court’s order compelling arbitration

and the court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the arbitration order. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

, and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949). The order Whittman seeks to appeal is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the

motion to dismiss as interlocutory and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished