Terri L. Switzer v. Credit Acceptance Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1455
TERRI L. SWITZER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
THOMAS L. SWITZER,
Movant – Appellant,
and
E.B., A Minor; H.B., A Minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
L & K RECOVERY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00042-sgw-jgw)
Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terri L. Switzer, Thomas L. Switzer, Appellants Pro Se. Barry
Dorans, Stephen Patrick Pfeiffer, WOLCOTT, RIVERS & GATES,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Switzer appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for joinder. Terri Switzer appeals the
district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Terri Switzer filed a complaint in the district court
against Credit Acceptance Corporation (“Credit Acceptance”)
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1692 (2006) (“FDCPA”) and asserting state law claims
stemming from the repossession of a vehicle purchased by her
husband, Thomas Switzer. Thomas Switzer previously brought a
similar action against Credit Acceptance, though his claims were
ultimately submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration agreement. Switzer v. Credit Acceptance Corp., No.
5:08-cv-00071 (W.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2009). Following the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Credit Acceptance
in the underlying case, Thomas Switzer filed a motion for
joinder and a motion for reconsideration. The district court
denied Thomas Switzer’s motion for joinder, and liberally
construed his motion for reconsideration as Terri Switzer’s.
Thomas Switzer argues on appeal that the district
court erred in denying his motion for joinder. We review for
abuse of discretion. See Watson v. Blankinship, 20 F.3d 383,
389 (10th Cir. 1994); see also National Union Fire Ins. Co. v.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Rite Aid of S.C., Inc., 210 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 2000)
(district court’s order joining necessary party is reviewed for
abuse of discretion); Davis v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 180 F.3d
626, 627 (4th Cir. 1999) (district court’s order denying motion
to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Thomas Switzer’s claims had already been ruled upon in
arbitration by the time he moved for joinder. Thus, we find the
district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Switzer could not attempt to relitigate his own claims by
claiming the right to join his spouse’s case.
Terri Switzer challenges the district court’s denial
of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We
have reviewed the record and finding no error, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Switzer v. Credit
Acceptance Corp., No. 5:09-cv-00042-sgw-jgw (W.D. Va. Apr. 7,
2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --