Williams v. FedEx

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 15, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-08190
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. FedEx (Williams v. FedEx) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. FedEx, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTOPHER AMBROSE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 20-CV-8190 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND FedEx; FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. By order dated October 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an (IFP) complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

BACKGROUND The only allegations in the complaint are as follows: I filed a complaint with the department of labor that my former employer violates the Sarbanes Oxley Act and would like to not [sic] withdraw my complaint to federal court. (ECF 2 ¶ III.) DISCUSSION A. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act The Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) prohibits publicly traded companies from discharging an employee because of any lawful act done by the employee: to provide information . . . regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341 [mail fraud], 1343 [wire fraud], 1344 [bank fraud], or 1348 [securities fraud], any rule or regulation of the [SEC], or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information . . . is provided to . . . (C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct). 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1)(C). To state a claim under § 1514A, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer knew that he engaged in the protected activity; (3) he suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (4) the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd., 710 F.3d 443, 447 (2d Cir. 2013); Yang v. Navigators Grp., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 519, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). See also Murray v. UBS Sec., LLC, No. 12-CV-5914 JMF, 2013 WL 2190084, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013) (Section 806 of the SOX “provides anti-retaliation protections for employees of public companies” who report certain misconduct to a supervisor). An employee who alleges a violation of this provision must first file a complaint with the Department of Labor but may thereafter bring suit if the Secretary of Labor does not issue a final decision within 180 days. Id. § 1514(b)(1); Guyden v. Aetna, Inc., 544 F.3d 376, 380 (2d Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with federal pleading rules. Plaintiff brings this complaint against his former employer, but he fails to explain what actually occurred in violation of the SOX. Plaintiff fails to explain, for example, the nature of the protected activity in which he engaged, and that he was subjected to an unfavorable action by his former employer because of his protected activity. . Plaintiff does assert that he filed a complaint with the Department of Labor as required, but because he does not allege when he filed it, it is e not clear if he has been waiting for more than 180 days for a final decision from the Secretary of Labor. B. Motion for Pro Bono Counsel The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and Plaintiff’s ability to gather the

facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess the merits of the action, Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants. To the greatest extent possible, Plaintiff’s

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Guyden v. Aetna, Inc.
544 F.3d 376 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Yang v. Navigators Group, Inc.
18 F. Supp. 3d 519 (S.D. New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. FedEx, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-fedex-nysd-2020.