Opinion ID: 2672814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Grady’s Fiduciary Duty Claim

Text: The Tucker Act also provides for jurisdiction over claims founded on a fiduciary duty the government owes to an individual or a group of citizens. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 211 (1983). However, this applies only to claims for a violation of a statute or regulation that mandates the payment of money when the duty is violated. Id. at 216-17. Below, the trial court ruled that Mr. Grady failed to cite to any statute or regulation that can fairly be construed as requiring the payment of money when the SEC fails to maintain “fair and orderly markets” as is mandated by the statute. Grady, 2013 WL 4957344, at . On appeal, Mr. Grady has again not cited to any spe- cific money-mandating statute or regulation. Instead, he contends that the SEC has essentially assumed control of his investments and that the SEC now holds all stock market investments in trust, so a money-mandating requirement can be fairly inferred from this trust relationship. Appellant’s Br. 8-9. In support of his contention, Mr. Grady cites to various cases involving the government’s management of property held in trust for American Indian tribes. Id. at 25-27. However, in those cases the government exercised direct control of tribal property. Here, Mr. Grady controlled his own money, and he does not allege that the SEC actually controlled his purchases or sales of securities. Because Mr. Grady has not cited to any specific money-mandating statute or regulation and has failed to allege that the SEC controlled his assets, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Grady’s claim regarding a fiduciary duty for lack of jurisdiction. 6 GRADY v. US