A federal judge in Washington D.C. has dismissed a sweeping lawsuit filed by a New York resident who claimed she was the victim of a vast conspiracy involving state, city, and federal officials to pursue a baseless misdemeanor criminal case against her. The court found it lacked the authority to hear the case against the New York-based defendants and that the requested relief against federal officials was unavailable.
Feifei Gu, a New York resident, sued 23 individuals, including former President Donald J. Trump, current and former federal and state officials, and a real estate agent, Hang Chen. Ms. Gu alleged that Mr. Chen falsely reported that she damaged a surveillance camera in her apartment building, leading to a misdemeanor prosecution in New York. She contended this criminal case was part of a larger conspiracy involving numerous officials, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, state judges, and prosecutors.
The defendants—divided into Federal, State, and City groups—all moved to dismiss the complaint. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted all motions to dismiss.
No Jurisdiction Over New York Defendants
The primary hurdle for Ms. Gu’s claims against the New York State and City defendants was jurisdiction. For a federal court to hear a case against out-of-state defendants, it must establish personal jurisdiction—the court’s power to exercise authority over them.
Judge Sooknanan noted that jurisdiction can be established through general jurisdiction (if the defendant is “essentially at home” in D.C.), specific jurisdiction (if the claims arise from the defendant’s activities in D.C.), or consent.
The court quickly dismissed the first two possibilities. The New York defendants are not D.C. residents, nor did they consent to be sued in the District. Therefore, the court examined specific jurisdiction under D.C.’s long-arm statute.
The D.C. long-arm statute allows jurisdiction for claims arising from transacting business, contracting for services, or causing tortious injury within the District. However, the court found that none of the alleged actions—the initial incident, the report to the district attorney, and the ensuing prosecution—occurred in the District of Columbia. Since Ms. Gu herself is a New York resident, she could not establish a connection based on her own residence.
“It follows that [Ms. Gu] cannot establish personal jurisdiction under D.C. law and that this Court cannot hear her case,” the opinion stated, leading to the dismissal of all claims against the New York State and City officials.
Federal Officials Immune from Requested Relief
Ms. Gu’s claims against the federal defendants—which included President Trump and several federal judges—sought extraordinary remedies. Specifically, she asked the D.C. court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling federal officials to investigate Attorney General Letitia James for allegedly pursuing “fake cases.” She also asked the court to impeach several federal judges and freeze federal funds sent to New York State.
The court found that the request for a writ of mandamus—an extraordinary judicial remedy reserved for clear violations of a clear duty—was inappropriate. To obtain mandamus, a plaintiff must show a clear right to relief and that the official has a clear, non-discretionary duty to act.
The court cited established precedent, noting that the Supreme Court has long recognized that an agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce is generally a matter of “absolute discretion.” Ms. Gu failed to show that the federal defendants had a clear duty to investigate the New York Attorney General.
Furthermore, the requests to impeach federal judges or freeze state funds were outside the court’s authority. The opinion emphasized that the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment,” meaning the judiciary has “nothing whatever to do with impeachments.” The request to freeze funds was also dismissed, as Ms. Gu failed to plead any basis showing federal money was funding her specific prosecution.
Denial of Motion for Default Judgment
Finally, the judge addressed a separate motion filed by Ms. Gu seeking a default judgment against New York Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson. Ms. Gu argued that Judge Wilson had failed to respond to her complaint on time.
The court clarified that the New York State defendants, including Judge Wilson, had received extensions to respond. They complied with the final deadline by filing their consolidated Motion to Dismiss on May 20, 2025, thus avoiding any default. Accordingly, Ms. Gu’s motion for default judgment was denied.
In summary, the D.C. District Court concluded that it lacked the necessary authority (personal jurisdiction) over the New York officials and that the relief sought against the federal officials (mandamus, impeachment) was legally unavailable.