Opinion ID: 41378
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of Jurisdictional Issue

Text: 23 On September 24, 2004, the Texas district court ordered that persons, financial institutions, or other entities who have any interest or control over the subject property are hereby restrained, enjoined and prohibited . . . from . . . distributing any of the HLF funds listed in Attachment A to the Government's application for the restraining order. Prior to September 24, 2004, funds in some of the accounts listed in Attachment A were levied pursuant to a writ of execution issued by a federal district court in each of the following states: New York, South Carolina, and Washington. 24 Citing Wong Shing v. M/V Mardina Trader, 564 F.2d 1183, 1188 (5th Cir.1977), the Ungars contend that these accounts were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of all other courts because the levied writs of execution placed them in custodia legis. 6 The Ungars contend that other courts of competent jurisdiction had already taken possession of the bank accounts, therefore, the Texas district court had no jurisdiction to issue an order restraining transfer or other disposition of these HLF funds. 25 By contrast, the Government contends that property is placed in custodia legis only via an in rem judgment. According to the Government, the Ungars' action and judgment against Hamas was in personam, and registration of this in personam judgment in other federal district courts did not convert their action into an in rem proceeding. The Government asserts that because there was no in rem proceeding before them, the courts that issued writs of execution did not have exclusive jurisdiction over HLF assets and, therefore, the Texas district court had jurisdiction to enter the restraining order.