court did not find, nor could it have found on this record, that lesser sanctions were insufficient to remedy unexecuted service as to the MONADA. But even if we look deeper into the matter and attempt to divine the district court’s unstated rationale, we remain unable to discern how failure to serve the MONADA under the peculiar circumstances of this case could warrant a dismissal with prejudice. As for the suggestion that Betty K’s failure to perfect service on the MONADA deprived the court of jurisdiction, we note at the outset that if the district court actually lacked jurisdiction over the vessel, the court would have lacked the power to dismiss Betty K’s claims against the vessel with prejudice. See Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Boudloche v. Conoco Oil Corp., 615 F.2d 687,
holding that this court had jurisdiction to review a district courts order affirming a bankruptcy courts dismissal of an adversary complaint with prejudice holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court holding that the judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction holding a district court lost subjectmatter jurisdiction over the merits of the case when it issued an order of dismissal without prejudice