Opinion ID: 2672814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Grady’s “Implied-In-Fact” Claim

Text: The Tucker Act provides jurisdiction over implied-infact contract claims against the government. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 215 (1983) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). An implied-in-fact contract claim requires allegations of a specific “meeting of the minds” between an authorized representative of the United States and the claimant. See Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 424 (1996). However, the trial court lacks jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to consider contract claims arising out of contracts implied-in-law. See Merritt v. United States, 267 U.S. 338, 341 (1925). An implied-inlaw contract is a promise gleaned from a legal duty to act in a certain way. Id.; see also D&N Bank v. United States, 331 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“An agency’s performance of its regulatory or sovereign functions does not create contractual obligations.”). To avoid dismissal, Mr. Grady did not have to prove the existence of an implied-in-fact contract in the complaint, but he did have to allege one. See Kawa v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 294, 303 (2007). In this case, Mr. Grady has alleged that the SEC had a statutory duty “to maintain fair and orderly markets for the ‘protection of investors.’” J.A. 369. Although he has characterized this as an “implied-in-fact” contract claim, Mr. Grady has failed to make any of the required allegations of a specific contract between himself and the SEC. Thus, we disagree with Mr. Grady’s characterization and instead conclude that this claim involves a contract implied-in-law. See Hercules, 516 U.S. at 424. Mr. Grady has, therefore, failed to allege a valid implied-in-fact contract claim over which the trial court has jurisdiction. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Grady’s “implied-in-fact” claim for lack of jurisdiction. GRADY v. US 5