Geary v. Parexel International Corporation
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-07322
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Geary v. Parexel International Corporation, Judge Davila denied Parexel’s motion to dismiss Geary’s Dodd-Frank retaliation claim.
William John Geary’s remaining Dodd-Frank retaliation claim against Parexel International Corporation was not dismissed on the grounds raised in Parexel’s motion.
What happened
In Geary v. Parexel International Corporation, William John Geary, representing himself, alleged that he reported information to the Securities and Exchange Commission in May 2015 and that Parexel retaliated against him. The case’s remaining claim was retaliation under the Dodd-Frank whistleblower law.
Parexel argued that Geary had not clearly identified how he reported the information, had not shown that he reported it before his June 2015 termination, and had added material beyond the court’s permission to amend. The court found that Geary’s reference to the SEC’s electronic submission system could reasonably mean the SEC’s complaint portal, that he alleged reporting before his termination, and that he added no new claims or parties.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied Parexel’s motion to dismiss. The court therefore did not dismiss Geary’s remaining Dodd-Frank retaliation claim on the grounds Parexel raised.
The detailed version
- Geary v. Parexel International Corporation · No. 5:19-cv-07322
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Geary’s sole remaining claim was for retaliation under Section 21F of the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6. The court had previously dismissed the claim because Geary had not alleged which method prescribed by Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 21F-9 he used to report suspected violations to the SEC. The court allowed him to amend that deficiency. Geary then filed a Third Amended Complaint.
Parexel’s Arguments
Parexel moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Parexel argued that Geary’s description of an “SEC electronic submission system” was too vague; that he did not allege that he reported to the SEC before his termination in June 2015; and that the Third Amended Complaint went beyond the scope of the court’s permission to amend.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Geary’s allegation could reasonably be understood as referring to the SEC’s website and its electronic TCR portal, meaning the “Tip, Complaint, or Referral” portal. The court concluded that this was one of the three methods prescribed by Rule 21F-9 and was sufficient at the pleading stage to allege that Geary provided information about a securities-law violation to the SEC in the required manner.
The court also rejected Parexel’s argument about timing. Geary alleged that he reported his whistleblower complaint to the SEC in May 2015, approximately one month before his termination on June 30, 2015. The court was required at this stage to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true.
Finally, the court found that the Third Amended Complaint complied with the earlier amendment order. Although the earlier order identified the need to allege compliance with Rule 21F-9, it prohibited Geary from adding new claims or parties without permission; the court found that the Third Amended Complaint added neither.
Disposition
The court denied Parexel’s motion to dismiss. Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on October 27, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.