Tyler Perry Says Feven Mosisa Was Duped by Impostor, Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Jurisdiction
On Monday, June 2, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Feven Mosisa against Tyler Perry, a well-known actor, director, and producer. The court dismissed the case without prejudice due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over Perry, a Georgia resident.
Mosisa, a Maryland resident representing herself, filed the lawsuit on May 17, 2024, alleging breach of contract and fraud. According to the complaint, Mosisa began communicating with Perry through internet messaging starting July 4, 2023. She claimed Perry requested $40,000 to reserve an in-person visitation session, followed by additional payments totaling $71,300. Perry allegedly canceled the appointment but promised a $450,000 refund, instructing Mosisa to create an online bank account using a provided link. Mosisa stated she did not receive the promised refund.
Additionally, Mosisa alleged Perry advised her to invest $12,000 in Bitcoin through an individual named Anthony James, with a promise of profit after six months. Her online account reportedly showed a $200,000 balance, but James refused to release the funds. Mosisa sought $650,000 in damages, covering the $83,300 she paid and the promised refund.
Perry moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, among other grounds. Perry argued he had no contacts with Maryland, did not own property or conduct business there, and had never communicated with Mosisa or solicited money from her. In a sworn declaration, Perry stated he had no involvement in the alleged transactions and suggested Mosisa was a victim of a celebrity impersonation scam.
The court, presided over by U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang, allowed limited discovery to investigate the identity of the individuals involved in the alleged fraud. Attorney Diana C. Valle briefly represented Mosisa during this phase, issuing subpoenas to banks, financial institutions, and social media providers. After discovery concluded, Valle ended her representation, and Mosisa continued self-represented.
In its ruling, the court found Mosisa failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Perry under both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Maryland’s long-arm statute. The court noted that personal jurisdiction requires sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, Maryland, such that a defendant could reasonably anticipate being sued there. Perry’s declaration stated he had no contacts with Maryland, and Mosisa provided no evidence to contradict this. The court also found no indication Perry knowingly directed communications to Mosisa in Maryland.
Under Maryland’s long-arm statute, jurisdiction may be exercised over a defendant who transacts business, causes tortious injury, or has other significant connections to the state. The court determined none of these criteria applied, as Perry did not engage in purposeful activity in Maryland or commit any acts within the state related to Mosisa’s claims.
As a result, the court granted Perry’s motion to dismiss without addressing his additional arguments that the complaint was frivolous or failed to state a claim. The dismissal without prejudice allows Mosisa the option to refile the case in a court with proper jurisdiction.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
