Nasio v. FBS Markets Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SIMON AMUNGA NASIO CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-1936
FBS MARKETS INC. SECTION: “C” (1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Simon Amunga Nasio filed this lawsuit alleging securities fraud against
FBS Markets Inc., an international brokerage firm. However, based on the facts alleged in the
Complaint, this dispute has no connection to the Eastern District of Louisiana and the defendant
has no contacts with this jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this lawsuit be
DISMISSED for improper venue and for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Background
Mr. Nasio filed this lawsuit in September 2025. Mr. Nasio alleges that he is an individual
investor who transacted with defendant FBS Markets Inc. through its trading platforms. He alleges
that FBS fraudulently uses “U.S. securities and related financial instruments to conduct
manipulative trading operations in violation of federal securities laws, the Commodity Exchange
Act, and related statutes.” Rec. Doc 9, at 2. He admits that FBS bars U.S. residents and purportedly
operates outside the jurisdiction of the United States. He complains that FBS nonetheless relies on
U.S. securities, U.S. market data, and U.S.-based liquidity providers to conduct its business. Mr.
Nasio alleges that FBS’s pricing deviates materially from actual U.S. market benchmarks. And he
alleges that FBS profits by “skimming, stop-hunting, and using off-market spreads derived from
concealed U.S. liquidity provider data while denying Plaintiff and similarly situated traders
accurate access to U.S. securities pricing.” He claims that FBS has violated Section 10(b) of the
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act “insofar as Defendant operates a fraudulent enterprise using
interstate wires.”
Along with his Complaint, Mr. Nasio also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. On October 28, 2025, the Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but
ordered that summons be withheld and that Mr. Nasio show cause why his lawsuit should not be
dismissed for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted and/or for improper venue and/or
for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The deadline for Mr. Nasio’s response passed on
November 26, 2025. Mr. Nasio has not filed a response.1
Law and Analysis
Although it appears from the face of the complaint that Mr. Nasio has failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, see Rec. Doc. 20, because the undersigned finds that this matter
should be dismissed for improper venue and for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court does not
now address whether Mr. Nasio has stated a claim.
1. Venue
1 This Court’s Show Cause Order dated October 28, 2025, was sent to Mr. Nasio by mail to the mailing address he
provided when he filed suit. He requested permission to use the Court’s CM/ECF system to file and receive documents.
The Court denied this motion, but ordered that Mr. Nasio be allowed to receive electronic service of notices if he
signed up for a PACER login and password and completed a consent form. Rec. Doc. 28. This Order was circulated
to Mr. Nasio by mail and email. Mr. Nasio submitted the signed consent and affirmed that he had established a PACER
account and would regularly check his email for Notices of Electronic Filing. Rec. Doc. 29. The Court then extended
his deadline to respond to the Show Cause Order. Rec. Doc. 36. This Order included a copy of the earlier Show Cause
order and was circulated to Mr. Nasio via the electronic notice system as he had requested. Mr. Nasio later complained
that he had trouble opening the link to the Order. Rec. Doc. 37. But, he has not notified the Court that he wishes to
withdraw his consent to electronic service and begin receiving service by U.S. Mail. Of note and as explained by the
Court in granting Mr. Nasio permission to receive electronic notices, Rec. Doc. 28, even if Mr. Nasio needs to view a
court document after his first “free look,” he will be able to do so by entering his PACER login information. Reviewing
the docket or any document on the docket may require payment of a fee of $0.10 per page (no more than $3 per
document), though such fees are waived each quarter if the user spends $30 or less in that quarter. See PACER Pricing:
How fees work, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/pacer-pricing-how-fees-work (last accessed Jan. 13, 2026, at 12:15 p.m.).
Under the circumstances, the Court finds Mr. Nasio has had sufficient opportunity to be heard on the issues raised by
the Court’s Show Cause order. Moreover, Mr. Nasio will be allowed an opportunity to object to this Report and
Recommendation.
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 5

3
The general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides:
A civil action may be brought in -- (1) a judicial district in which any defendant
resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is
subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
When a case has been filed in the wrong venue, the court must “dismiss, or if it be in the interest
of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a). A court may address venue sua sponte or on motion. Caldwell v. Palmetto State
Sav. Bank of S.C., 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987); see Collins v. Evans, No. 25-CV-0079, 2025
WL 3698410, at *4 (W.D. La. Dec. 3, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:25-CV-
00079, 2025 WL 3698405 (W.D. La. Dec. 19, 2025).
According to the Complaint, defendant FBS is a foreign entity that purports to operate
outside of the jurisdiction of the United States by banning U.S. residents from using its services.
There is no basis to conclude that FBS resides in this district as provided in subsection (1).
Mr. Nasio does not allege where the incidents giving rise to his purported claims occurred
to establish venue pursuant to subsection (2). But there is no reason to believe they occurred in the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Even if the events alleged occurred where Mr. Nasio resides, it
appears that Mr. Nasio does not reside in Louisiana. Although he has provided an address in
Louisiana, the address provided is a building at Nichols State University. Mr. Nasio is the plaintiff
in a suit he filed in the Central District of California in July 2025. Nasio v. University of the People,
No. 25-cv-7183 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2025). There he provided a homeless shelter in Pasadena,
California as his address. He is also the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas
in March 2025. Nasio v. United States Department of Defense, No. 4:25-cv-14 (W.D. Tex. Mar.
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 5

4
28, 2025). There he provided the address of a museum in Alpine, Texas as his address. There is
no basis to conclude that any, let alone a substantial part, of the acts and omissions alleged occurred
in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Finally, under subsection (3), a lawsuit may be brought in any judicial district where the
defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action if there is no other district
where the action may be brought. But, as further discussed below, the Complaint provides no basis
to conclude that FBS is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Venue is not proper here, and it is not apparent what other district this case might be
transferred to. Dismissal for improper venue is appropriate.
2. Personal Jurisdiction
A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void. Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V
VIKTOR KURNATOVSKIY, 242 F.3d 322, 323 (5th Cir. 2001). A court may consider whether
it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, as long as the court allows the “plaintiff a reasonable
opportunity to present any available evidence supporting the court's jurisdiction.” Id. at 325.
“A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant where,
(1) the long-arm statute of the forum state confers personal jurisdiction over that defendant, and
the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process under the United States Constitution.”
In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 767 F. Supp. 2d 649, 656 (E.D. La. 2011).
“The limits of the Louisiana long-arm statute are coextensive with constitutional due process
limits.” Jackson v. Tanfoglio Giuseppe, S.R.L., 615 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 2010)
Due process in the personal jurisdiction context requires that, (1) the defendant has
purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by
establishing minimum contacts with the forum state, and (2) the exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Chinese Drywall, 767 F. Supp. 2d at 656. Courts may exercise general jurisdiction when the
defendant “‘has continuous and systematic general business contacts' with the forum state,” and
the court may exercise specific jurisdiction “‘in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's
contacts with the forum.’” Luv N' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 n. 8, 416 (1984).
As noted above with regard to venue, Mr. Nasio has alleged no contacts of FBS with
Louisiana or this district. There is no basis on which to find this Court has personal jurisdiction
over FBS.
Conclusion and Recommendation
On the complaint as written, this is not the proper venue for Mr. Nasio’s claims and this
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over FBS. Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this lawsuit be DISMISSED without prejudice for
improper venue and for lack of personal jurisdiction.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Objections must be: (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served within fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1(a), 6(b) and
72(b). A party's failure to object bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district
judge; and (2) appellate review of the un-objected-to factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of January, 2026.
Janis van Meerveld
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 56 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 5