On Thursday, February 19, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order addressing motions to dismiss a complaint filed by plaintiff David Gonzalez against defendants BAM Trading Services, Inc. d/b/a Binance US, Binance Holdings LTD d/b/a Binance, and Changpeng Zhao.

Judge Brian R. Martinotti presided over the case. The court denied BAM’s motion to dismiss based on issue preclusion but granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, leaving the door open for the plaintiff to refile with additional information.

Gonzalez’s complaint alleges that he lost cryptocurrency due to theft from his Coinbase account between May and June 2021. He claims that some of the stolen cryptocurrency was transferred to at least one Binance.com account and subsequently laundered. Gonzalez did not have an account with either Binance.com or Binance.US, nor did he store any cryptocurrency with them.

Binance is a foreign company based in the Cayman Islands that operates Binance.com, a major cryptocurrency exchange. BAM is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, operating Binance.US, a separate but related cryptocurrency exchange. Zhao, a Canadian citizen residing in Dubai and Paris, is the majority owner of both Binance and BAM and allegedly acted as an officer and director for both entities.

The court’s decision hinged on the issue of personal jurisdiction, which determines whether a court has the authority to hear a case against a defendant. The court found that while BAM, which operates Binance.US, is licensed as a money transmitter in New Jersey and has marketed to residents of the state, the plaintiff’s claims did not arise from those activities. The stolen cryptocurrencies were allegedly transferred to Binance.com, not Binance.US.

The court also addressed the issue of issue preclusion, which prevents parties from relitigating issues that have already been decided in a prior case. BAM argued that a previous ruling on a preliminary injunction in a related case should prevent Gonzalez from pursuing the current complaint. However, the court found that the previous ruling did not definitively determine the issue of personal jurisdiction over BAM.

The court determined it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Binance or Zhao based on an agency theory, as that depended on establishing jurisdiction over BAM. The court also found that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1965, because that required establishing personal jurisdiction over at least one defendant based on forum-based contacts.

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, giving Gonzalez thirty days to amend the complaint with the necessary certification in the District of New Jersey. Failure to do so will result in dismissal with prejudice.

Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.