registry, and shall mail that check to Dean Vlahos, President of U.S. D.I.D., at 640 Federal Road, Brookfield, CT 06804. SO ORDERED. 1 . Section 1352 provides, in relevant part, that "district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with State courts, of any action on a bond executed under any law of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1352. 2 . In its supplemental brief, U.S. D.I.D. also renewed its objection to the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction and promised to file a motion to that effect. It never did so. In any event, as stated on the record in the July 30, 2012 telephone conference (July 30, 2012 Tr. 3-4), there is no question that the Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate entitlement to the bond. See, e.g., Siegelman v. SPA, 925 F.2d 385, 388 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Va. Plastics Co. v. Biostim Inc., 820 F.2d
holding that the district court possessed ancillary jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the disposition of an injunction bond holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over an injunction bond even where the underlying dispute had itself been dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding appealable district courts order dismissing for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction due to determination of exclusive tribal court jurisdiction holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment