which Claimant Golfrate Holdings (Angola) LDA filed a Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment and Memorandum of Law, also raising the argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction over blocked assets held at a bank branch located in the State of New York (Diet. 1052), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Dkt. 1055). Having now had the opportunity to consider carefully, all of these submissions, as well as engaging in its own independent research, the Court concludes that it Jacks subject matter jurisdiction to garnish any funds in any bank accounts located outside the State of Florida. All of the funds at issue in the motions, memoranda, and writs now before the Court are held outside the State of Florida and, thus, are beyond the reach of a Florida wr 8, at *2 (N.D.Ga.2011) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 249,
holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter holding that in a quasi in rem action a district court does not have jurisdiction over the res when that property is not physically within the same state as the court holding that where prior state court had in rem jurisdiction district court could maintain in personam jurisdiction and simply deny requests for conflicting in rem relief because district court is fully capable of preventing inappropriate conversion of the suit to a proceeding truly in rem holding that an action quasi in rem requires a seizure of property within the jurisdiction of the court or its equivalent