Ramona Rocheleau v. Microsemi Corp.
680 F. App'x 533
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rocheleau, plaintiff, alleges Microsemi retaliated under SOX §1514A and Dodd-Frank §922 for whistleblowing; district court granted summary judgment for Microsemi for lack of a prima facie protected activity; court applies burden-shifting framework for §1514A retaliation claims; protected activity requires a reasonable belief of securities law violation or enumerated fraud provisions; evidence showed Rocheleau reported OFCCP violations, misclassification, and data changes; none of these evidence supported shareholder fraud or enumerated violations; alleged mail/wire fraud lack evidentiary support; 10-K-related omissions could not be basis because report preceded disclosure deadline; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rocheleau had an objectively reasonable belief of shareholder fraud | Rocheleau argued actions showed fraud to shareholders | Microsemi contends no reasonable belief of listed fraud or securities violation | Yes, Rocheleau lacked such a belief |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (reasonable belief must relate to potential securities violation, not deferring to broader fraud concepts)
- Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1988) (material misrepresentation or omission fundamental to securities fraud)
- Tides v. The Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2011) (burden-shifting framework for prima facie retaliation showing)
- Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court improper to entertain new arguments not raised below)
- Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700 (2d Cir. 2004) (district court abuse of discretion in allowing third motion for summary judgment)