Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): no interest in the subject matter litigated” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although the paradigmatic example of a nominal defendant is “a bank or trustee [that] has only a custodial claim to the property,” Colello, 139 F.3d at 677, the term is broad enough to encompass persons who are in possession of funds to which they have no rightful claim, such as money that has been fraudulently transferred by the defendant in the underlying securities enforcement action. See id. at 675; SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123, 1130-32 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a corporation nominally owned by the defendant’s mother and into which the defendant had channeled proceeds of his securities law violations); SEC v. Wencke, 783 F.2d 829, 838 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Cherif, 933 F.2d at 414. Bustos, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property (B) holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1498b (C) holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction (D) holding that a district court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent permissible under the law of the state in which the district court sits (E) holding that the district court had jurisdiction over the assets of a corporation into which the defendant in the underlying enforcement action had tunneled proceeds of his securities law violations
Output (English): holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction