Gong v. Sarnoff

Background

Junwu Gong alleged that he participated in peaceful protests concerning O’Melveny & Myers LLP’s alleged relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. He alleged that, during a December 20, 2022 protest near a location believed to be Stuart M. Sarnoff’s home, Carl M. Stanton harassed protesters, claimed a connection to the New York City Police Department, and struck Gong with a car. Gong also alleged that responding police officers failed to assist him and delayed his medical treatment. O’Melveny and Sarnoff were among several defendants, but this opinion addressed only the claims against O’Melveny and Sarnoff.

Gong asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and for retaliation based on protected speech; a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); and a claim under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a federal law requiring certain persons acting for foreign principals to register. He sought damages of at least $10 million and a declaration requiring O’Melveny and Sarnoff to register under that law.

Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The court dismissed Counts I and III under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. Section 1983 generally requires conduct by a person acting under state authority that deprives someone of federal rights. Gong argued that O’Melveny and Sarnoff had worked with or influenced New York City police and therefore could be held responsible for the alleged constitutional violations.

The court concluded that Gong’s allegations were speculative and conclusory. He did not allege specific facts showing that O’Melveny or Sarnoff had a relationship with Stanton, that either defendant directed or participated in Stanton’s conduct, or that either defendant played a role in the police response. The court also found no adequate allegations that the defendants were coerced by the state, performed a public function, or jointly acted with police to cause the alleged injury. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims, including the conspiracy theory, because Gong did not allege facts showing an agreement, a shared unlawful plan, or an overt act carried out to advance such a conspiracy.

Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)

The court dismissed Count II under Rule 12(b)(6). A claim under Section 1985(3) requires, among other things, an adequately alleged conspiracy intended to deprive a person or class of equal legal protection, an act advancing the conspiracy, an injury, and discriminatory animus. The court held that Gong alleged only conclusions that O’Melveny, Sarnoff, Stanton, and government actors had agreed to oppose Chinese dissident protesters. He did not provide facts explaining how or when an agreement was formed or what role each alleged participant played. Because the conspiracy allegation itself was insufficient, the court did not address the other elements of the Section 1985(3) claim.

Foreign Agents Registration Act Claim

The court dismissed Count VII under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses whether the court has authority to hear a claim. The court held that Gong lacked standing, meaning he had not shown a concrete injury that was caused by the alleged failure to register and could be remedied by a favorable decision.

The court found that Gong did not allege that he was harmed by the absence of registration. It also found that he did not adequately allege informational harm from being denied information required by the statute. To the extent Gong relied on his alleged physical contact and emotional trauma, he did not explain how those injuries were caused by the defendants’ failure to register or how a declaration requiring registration would remedy them. Because the court dismissed the claim for lack of standing, it did not decide whether Gong had adequately pleaded a violation of the statute or whether the statute provided a private right to sue.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss Counts I, II, III, and VII against O’Melveny and Sarnoff with prejudice. The court stated that Gong had not requested permission to amend, had not identified additional facts or legal theories, and could not successfully amend these claims. The court retained jurisdiction to address the defendants’ Rule 11 sanctions motion to the extent that motion was properly before it. The opinion does not resolve the claims against the City of New York, Lauren A. Duffy, or the three unidentified police officers; the opinion states that those defendants had not been served.