Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51029/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Crane
Appellant
Lithia Motors Support Services, Incorporated
Appellee
Lithia Motors, Incorporated
Appellee
Lithia TO, Incorporated
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51029

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CV-16

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. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51029 Document: 00513151127 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
No. 14-51029

2

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. 

 Case: 14-51029 Document: 00513151127 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2015