govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-02313-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
 
SHAHNAWAZ MATHIAS, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. 25-2313 (EGS) 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” 
or “SEC”) has filed a Complaint against Defendants Shahnawaz 
Mathias a/k/a “Shah” Mathias (“Mr. Mathias”), Ameri Metro, Inc. 
(“Ameri Metro”), Penndel Land Development Co. (“Penndel”), and 
HSRF Trust (“HSRF”) (collectively “Defendants”). See Compl., ECF 
No. 1.1 The Commission alleges the following Claims for Relief: 
(1) Unregistered Offers and Sales of Securities in Violation of 
Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act against all 
Defendants; (2) Fraud in Violation of Section 17(a) of the 
Securities Act against all Defendants; (3) Fraud in Violation of 
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against 
 
1 When citing electronic filings throughout this Opinion, the 
Court cites to the ECF header page number, not the page number 
of the filed document. 

2 
 
Defendants Mr. Mathias and Ameri Metro; (4) Fraud in Violation 
of Section 10(b) and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) of the Exchange Act 
against Penndel and HSRF; (5) Periodic Reporting Violations in 
Violation of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 
and 13a-11 thereunder against Ameri Metro; (6) Periodic 
Reporting Violations-Aiding and Abetting Ameri Metro’s Violation 
of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-
11 thereunder against Mr. Mathias; and (7) Control Person 
Liability for Ameri Metro’s, Penndel’s, and HSRF’s Violations of 
the Exchange Act against Mr. Mathias. Id. at 19-25. 
 On March 3, 2026, the Court denied Mr. Mathias’ Motion to 
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 
12(b)(2), and 12(b)(3). See Mem. Opinion and Order, ECF No. 13. 
Now pending before the Court is Mr. Mathias’ Motion for Relief 
from the Court’s March 3, 2026 Memorandum Opinion and Order 
pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(5) and 60(b)(4), 
and to dismiss or quash service of process because Mr. Mathias’ 
was not properly served (“Mot. for Relief”). See Mot. for 
Relief, ECF No. 17. Mr. Mathias proceeds pro se.
2 
 
2 Mr. Mathias may appear pro se on his own behalf, but may not 
appear on behalf of the corporations named in the Complaint. 
See Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 835 (D.C. Cir. 
1984)(stating individual who was not a member of the bar of any 
court may appear pro se, but is not qualified to appear as 
counsel for others). 

3 
 
Upon careful consideration of the Motion for Relief, the 
Commission’s Opposition, the applicable law, and for the reasons 
explained below, the Court DENIES the Motion for Relief.3 
I. Procedural Background 
The SEC filed the Complaint against Defendants on July 18, 
2025. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On July 21, 2025, summons was 
electronically issued to the Defendants. See Summons, ECF No. 3. 
The Summons for Mr. Mathias listed the following address: 
SHAHNAWAZ MATHIAS a/k/a Shah Mathias 3255 Cape Horn Road, Apt. 
163 Red Lion, PA 17356. See id. at 1. Before any Return of 
Service was filed for Mr. Mathias, he filed, on August 8, 2025, 
a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 
Personal Jurisdiction, and Improper Venue pursuant the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(3). See 
Mot. to Dismiss, No. 8. 
On August 21, 2025, the SEC requested that the Summons be 
reissued to Mr. Mathias at a different address: 2575 Eastern 
Boulevard, York, PA 17402. See Request for Summons to Issue, ECF 
No. 10. Mr. Mathias’ Declaration avers that his “primary mailing 
address is PO Box 163, Red Lion, Pennsylvania 17356. For safety 
reasons I do not declare my address anywhere. The business 
 
3 Mr. Mathias did not file a Reply brief in response to the SEC’s 
opposition brief. See generally Dkt. for Civil Action No. 25-
2313. 

4 
 
address associated with Ameri Metro, Inc., Penndel Land 
Development Co., and HSRF Trust is 2575 Eastern Boulevard, York, 
Pennsylvania 17402.” Mathias Decl., ECF No. 16-2 ¶ 1. The 
Summons for Mr. Mathias was reissued on August 22, 2025, see 
Summons, ECF No. 11; and the Return of Service/Affidavit was 
filed on August 29, 2025, see ECF No. 12. The process server 
avers that “I left the summons at the office or usual place of 
business of Shahnawaz Mathias with Tracie Snyder, property 
manager, at 2575 Eastern Blvd., East York, PA 17402 on 8/26/2025 
at 11:53 am.” Id. at 2. 
II. Legal Standards and Analysis 
A. Mr. Mathias Waived Insufficient Service of Process 
as a Ground for Dismissal 
 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), a 
party may move to dismiss for insufficient service of process. 
F
ED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(5). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) 
“forbid[s] a defendant who makes a preanswer motion under this 
rule from making a further motion presenting any defense or 
objection which was available to him at the time he made the 
first motion and which he could have included, but did not in 
fact include therein. Thus if the defendant moves before answer 
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, he is 
barred from making a further motion presenting the defense of 
improper venue, if that defense was available to him when he 

5 
 
made his original motion.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(g)(2), Commentary to 
1966 Amendment. 
Here, Mr. Mathias moved to dismiss, specifically citing 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 
12(b)(3), on August 4, 2026. See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8. Mr. 
Mathias had not been served when he filed the Motion to Dismiss. 
However, a Rule 12(b)(5) motion became available to him when he 
was served on August 26, 2025. See Return of Service/Affidavit, 
ECF No. 13. If Mr. Mathias wanted the Court to consider whether 
the case should be dismissed for insufficient service of 
process, he “should have amended [his] motion to dismiss” after 
he was served. Holley v. United States, Civil Action No. 24-
1536, 2025 WL 266532, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2025). “Having 
failed to do so, the [C]ourt will treat the issue as waived.” 
Id. 
The Court is mindful that pleadings by pro se litigants are 
generally held “to less stringent standards than formal 
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 
520 (1972) (per curiam). This liberal construction “is not, 
however, a license to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure.” Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 658 F. Supp. 2d 
135, 137 (D.D.C. 2009). 
 

6 
 
B. Even if Mr. Mathias Had Not Waived Insufficient 
Service of Process, Service of Process Was 
Sufficient and Valid 
 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(e)(1), 
“an individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of the 
United States by: (1) following state law for serving a summons 
in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction in 
the state where the district court is located or where service 
is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Pennsylvania law provides 
that “[o]riginal process may be served . . . (2) by handing a 
copy . . . (iii) at any office or usual place of business of the 
defendant to his agent or to the person for the time being in 
charge thereof.” 231 Pennsylvania Code § 402(a)(2)(iii). Here, 
Mr. Shah was served at his usual place of business by leaving 
the documents with the property manager. 
 Mr. Mathias argues that service was not effective because 
he “was outside of the United States at the time the SEC 
purportedly served process” and so “service was not effectuated 
in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” 
pursuant to Rule 4(f). Mot. for Relief, ECF No. 17 at 2, 3. Rule 
4(f) governs how an individual “may be served at a place not 
within any judicial district of the United States.” F
ED. R. CIV. 
P. 4(f). Mr. Mathias, however, provides no support for his 
assertion that “[w]hen an individual is located in a foreign 
country, service must comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

7 
 
Procedure 4(f).” See generally id. Nor could he. First, Rules 
4(e) and 4(f) are both permissive; they are neither proscriptive 
nor exclusive. Second, “service can occur under Rule 4(e) even 
if the individual is out of the country at that time.” 1 Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary § 4:32 Scope of 
Rule 4(e) (June 2025); see also Silvious v. Pharaon, 54 F.3d 
697, 701 (11th Cir. 1995); Phoenix Process Equipment Co. v. 
Capital Equipment & Trading Corporation, 250 F. Supp. 3d 296, 
300–01 (W.D. Ky. 2017); Calista Enterprises Ltd. v. Tenza 
Trading Ltd., 40 F. Supp. 3d 1371, 1376 n.2 (D. Or. 2014). 
III. Conclusion and Order 
 For the reasons explained above, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Mr. Mathias’ Motion for Relief, ECF No. 17, is 
DENIED. 
SO ORDERED. 
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan 
United States District Judge 
June 9, 2026 
 

Passage view · GavelSight