Case ID: f-appx_612/html/0243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian CRANE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LITHIA TO, INCORPORATED, also known as Lithia Toyota of Odessa; Lithia Motors Support Services, Incorporated; Lithia Motors, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-51029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 12, 2015.
    John Henry Crouch, IV, Esq., Kilgore & Kilgore, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Brenda Kay Baumgart, Esq., Todd Alo-hikeau Hanchett,' Andrea H. Thompson, Stoel Rives, L.L.P., Portland, OR, James W. Essman, Shafer, Davis, O’Leary & Stoker, Odessa, TX, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    
      Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Brian Crane appealed the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of two whistleblower retaliation claims under separate but related federal statutes: the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6.

Our thorough review of the briefs in this case, the pertinent parts of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of counsel reveals no error. The district court properly held that Crane failed to state a claim that he engaged in activity protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act because he did not plausibly allege he had a reasonable belief that the reported conduct was a violation of federal wire, mail, or securities fraud statutes. Likewise, the district court correctly determined that Crane’s failure to show he could plausibly recover under any of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act warranted dismissal of that claim. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s dismissal of both claims.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion-should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.