Mannina v. O'Keefe: Judge Weighs Whether Appeals Ruling Ends Fraud Claims Over Dating Sting

A federal judge in Washington is weighing whether a former FBI agent can keep suing James O'Keefe and O'Keefe Media Group for fraud, conspiracy and wiretapping over a hidden-camera dating sting. In filings dated Sept. 1 and Oct. 6, 2026, the defendants argue that an Aug. 21, 2026 federal appeals ruling in a separate O'Keefe case requires those claims to be dismissed. As of Oct. 17, the court had not ruled.

The case, Mannina v. O'Keefe Media Group, No. 1:25-cv-01524-APM, is before U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta in the District of Columbia. The pending motion turns on how far the D.C. Circuit's decision in Democracy Partners v. O'Keefe reaches. In May, a federal judge in Virginia dismissed a similar suit over a Bumble dating sting.

What the lawsuit alleges

Jamie Mannina joined the FBI in 2019 and left government service in May 2020 for Booz Allen Hamilton, according to his complaint, filed May 14, 2025. The court described him as "then a federal defense contractor".

The defendants are O'Keefe Media Group (OMG), O'Keefe and a woman identified in court papers by the pseudonym "Heidi Doe".

The following are allegations, not findings. In December 2024, Doe contacted Mannina on the dating app Bumble. The two went on dates on Jan. 9 and Jan. 11, 2025, which were secretly recorded. On Jan. 13, O'Keefe contacted Defense Department public affairs with information and footage. Mannina was removed from the Pentagon that day, and Booz Allen fired him on Jan. 14.

OMG published videos from the dates on Jan. 14 and 15, 2025, in a series titled "Dating the Deep State". Mannina alleges the videos were edited and spliced to falsely portray him as a senior Pentagon official plotting against the incoming Trump administration. He brings five counts: defamation, false light, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the federal and D.C. wiretap laws.

In a declaration described by the court, Doe said OMG trained her in "techniques of undercover journalism" and paid her $7,000 after publication "as an appreciation for [her] contribution".

The July 29 ruling

On July 29, 2026, Mehta denied both motions to dismiss, one from OMG and O'Keefe and one from Doe, so all five counts moved forward. In the same order, he granted in part and denied in part a motion to let Doe proceed under a pseudonym.

He found one statement not actionable: Mannina's objection to when O'Keefe's confrontation with him at the Wharf took place. He left open whether Mannina is a limited-purpose public figure, which the defendants may argue at summary judgment. "At this stage, it is at least plausible that Plaintiff is not," he wrote.

On fraud, Mehta rejected the argument that a date cannot support a misrepresentation claim. Doe's conduct "was not akin to simply misrepresenting herself to impress a suitor; she deliberately fabricated a persona and received a fee to elicit information," he wrote. He added that it "will be Plaintiff's burden to prove that Defendants are liable for damages arising out of Plaintiff's mental distress, loss of employment, and reputational consequences, and to establish causation as to each".

Mehta also ruled that, at the pleading stage, a reader could take the "Deep State" and "coup" characterizations as statements of fact rather than opinion.

He put off a First Amendment challenge to the wiretap laws' "purpose" clause, saying he would revisit it at summary judgment, "likely at that point with guidance from the Circuit". The District of Columbia intervened in February to defend its statute.

What the D.C. Circuit decided

On Aug. 21, 2026, a D.C. Circuit panel reversed a jury verdict that Democracy Partners and political consultant Bob Creamer had won against O'Keefe and Allison Maass, who had tricked Creamer into hiring her as an unpaid intern. The jury had awarded $120,000 for fraud, and the parties had stipulated to $10,000 in wiretap damages.

The court said the footage Maass obtained through fraud had no First Amendment protection: "just as she had no First Amendment right to gather this footage, he had no First Amendment right to publish it".

But it set a high bar for damages. "If it is uncontested that protected speech contributed to a damages award, the First Amendment imposes a heightened standard of proof," the court wrote. The plaintiff must show the unlawful conduct was the "sole," "pervasive" or "dominant force" behind the harm. Because actual damages are an element of fraud, the verdict "cannot stand," it held.

The panel also ruled that Maass did not become the firm's fiduciary, which defeated the wiretap claim. It did not rule on whether the wiretap "purpose" clause is constitutional, and the Mannina defendants say they "do not contend that the Circuit invalidated the purpose provisions". Judge Wilkins dissented in part. He would have kept the fraud liability finding with nominal damages and upheld the wiretap ruling.

Two readings of the appeals ruling

On Sept. 1, 2026, the defendants asked Mehta to reconsider and dismiss Counts III, IV and V (fraud, conspiracy and wiretap) with prejudice. The motion does not ask him to revisit defamation or false light.

OMG's reading. In their Oct. 6 reply, the defendants argue that under the new ruling, "ordinary substantial factor causation is constitutionally insufficient" when protected expression contributes to a loss. They say the only out-of-pocket loss Mannina specifically pleaded from relying on Doe is "approximately $230 in meal expenses". In an Oct. 15 video, O'Keefe argued that the recordings were made in a public place with one party's consent, and that Mannina is an easier case for the defense than Democracy Partners because no workplace was infiltrated. These are OMG's arguments; the court has not adopted them.

Mannina's reading. His attorney, Mark S. Zaid, wrote on X on Aug. 21 that the decision "actually helps our lawsuits against James O'Keefe and his undercover operatives." He added: "Indeed, DC Circuit recognized even unprotected 1st Amendment activity can be unlawful, as we argue is the case". The next day he wrote that the "Court made clear conduct that amounted to fraud would not receive First Amendment protection to gather or publish". According to the defendants' reply, Mannina's court opposition argues that the Circuit addressed "damages rather than liability". That opposition was not available for review.

The record also shows differences between the cases. Creamer conceded he was a limited-purpose public figure, and the appeals ruling came after a full trial, not at the pleading stage. Mehta has said it is plausible Mannina is not a public figure.

OMG's Oct. 15 web post called the reconsideration motion newly filed. Court records show it was filed Sept. 1, with the defendants' reply on Oct. 6.

The 'coup' dispute

The word "coup" appears in Mehta's ruling where he quotes Mannina's complaint, which alleges that OMG's publications stated or implied that he was "conspiring to commit a coup".

In its Oct. 15 video, OMG says it never used the word "coup" in its reporting. GROKsiNEWS.com reviewed the captions and descriptions of OMG's three January 2025 videos, archived copies of its two web articles, and the original posts on OMG's and O'Keefe's X accounts. None used the word. On Jan. 15, 2025, however, the @OKeefeMedia account reposted posts from other accounts that used it, including one that began "COUP ALERT!!!".

The Virginia contrast

In Fseisi v. O'Keefe Media Group, Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a suit by a government security consultant who said an OMG employee contacted him on Bumble and recorded him on two dates.

In a May 14, 2026 opinion, Trenga held that damages arising from OMG's publications were "foreclosed by the First Amendment," calling publication "an intervening cause from which the alleged damages resulted". He dismissed the wiretap claim because the alleged deception was part of obtaining the recordings, "not the purpose for which the recordings were intended to be used". He denied leave to amend as futile.

The cases differ. The Fseisi plaintiff brought no defamation claim and did not challenge that he was a limited-purpose public figure. The Mannina defendants acknowledge that Fseisi is "persuasive, not controlling authority," and that its plaintiff disclaimed reliance on defamatory publication. "Mannina has not," they wrote.

What comes next

Mehta's ruling on the motion could offer an early answer to how the D.C. Circuit's standard applies to an undercover-reporting case still at the pleading stage. No hearing date appeared in the court records reviewed. Fact discovery is set to close March 22, 2027.