Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05123/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05123-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert H. Ajamian
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT H. AJAMIAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5123

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00493-LB, Judge Lawrence J. 

Block. 

______________________ 

Decided: December 11, 2015

______________________ 

ROBERT H. AJAMIAN, Latham, NY, pro se.

MELISSA M. DEVINE, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

CLAUDIA BURKE. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-5123 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/11/2015
2 AJAMIAN v. US

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Robert H. Ajamian appeals the decision of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Ajamian v. United States, 

No. 15-493 C, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. June 26, 2015). We 

affirm. 

DISCUSSION

I.

Mr. Ajamian filed his complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on May 7, 2015. Thereafter, during the 

period between June 8, and June 16, 2015, he submitted 

to the court various documents in support of his claim. 

The court deemed these various documents to be part of 

Mr. Ajamian’s complaint. On June 26, 2015, the court 

granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint 

for lack of jurisdiction. In its decision, the court stated:

This court’s authority to hear cases is primarily defined by the Tucker Act, which grants this

court subject matter jurisdiction over claims 

against the United States that are founded on a 

money-mandating source of law and do not sound 

in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Upon review of 

plaintiff’s submissions, the court is unable to identify any allegations that give rise to any colorable 

claim over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Id. at 1. On July 9, 2015, the court denied Mr. Ajamian’s 

motion for reconsideration. Ajamian v. United States, No. 

No. 15-493 C, slip op. at 1 (Fed. Cl. July 9, 2015). 

Mr. Ajamian timely appealed the dismissal of his 

complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3).

Case: 15-5123 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/11/2015
AJAMIAN v. US 3

II.

“Whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed [a plaintiff’s] . . . complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de 

novo.” Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004). In determining whether the Court of Federal 

Claims possessed subject matter jurisdiction, we are 

“obligated to assume all factual allegations to be true and 

to draw all reasonable inferences in [Mr. Ajamian’s]

favor.” Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 

1995). 

In his complaint, as supplemented by his subsequent 

filings, Mr. Ajamian alleged that, through inaction, various federal agencies had “breach[ed] their fiduciary duties 

under the 1934 . . . Securities [Exchange] Act” to protect 

him against the criminal actions of certain securities 

brokers, entitling him to $150,000 in damages. Government Appendix (“Gov’t App.”) 67. Mr. Ajamian asserted 

that the existence of the government’s fiduciary duty 

amounted to a “contract” with the United States that 

brought his suit within the scope of the Tucker Act. Gov’t 

App. 67–68. In support of jurisdiction, he also cited to the 

Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Gov’t App. 69.

The Court of Federal Claims did not err in dismissing 

Mr. Ajamian’s complaint. Although Mr. Ajamian asserts 

that the government breached a fiduciary duty that 

amounted to a “contract,” in fact, his allegations of inaction by federal agencies, if anything, plainly sound in tort. 

As pointed out by the Court of Federal Claims in its 

decision dismissing Mr. Ajamian’s complaint, the plain 

language of the Tucker Act excludes claims sounding in 

tort from the court’s jurisdiction. See Rick’s Mushroom 

Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). To the extent Mr. Ajamian alleges violations of 

due process under the Constitution, that claim too fails. 

“The law is well settled that the Due Process clauses of 

Case: 15-5123 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/11/2015
4 AJAMIAN v. US

both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment of money and thus do not provide a 

cause of action under the Tucker Act.” Smith v. United 

States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Finally, Mr. 

Ajamian is not aided by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That statute 

provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The Court of 

Federal Claims is not a district court of the United States, 

however. Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 

(Fed. Cir. 2002). Section 1331 therefore does not confer 

on it jurisdiction over Mr. Ajamian’s suit.

We have considered Mr. Ajamian’s additional arguments with respect to jurisdiction and have found them to 

be without merit. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims dismissing Mr. Ajamian’s complaint is 

affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5123 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/11/2015