Brian Crane v. Lithia TO, Inc., et al, No. 14-51029 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-51029 Document: 00513151127 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-51029 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED BRIAN CRANE, Plaintiff - Appellant August 12, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-51029 Document: 00513151127 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2015 No. 14-51029 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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.