Court Opinion

ID: 9890818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 16:00:58.584331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:25.349078
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023   Page: 1 of 34

                                                                [PUBLISH]
                                      In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eleventh Circuit

                             ____________________

                                   No. 22-11520
                             ____________________

        NOBLE PRESTIGE LIMITED,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        CRAIG THOMAS GALLE,
        individually,
        PAUL HORN,
        individually,
        GALLE LAW GROUP, P.A.,
        a Florida professional association,

                                                    Defendants-Appellants.

                             ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11520         Document: 45-1         Date Filed: 10/16/2023   Page: 2 of 34

        2                          Opinion of the Court                 22-11520

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Florida
                         D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-82357-RS
                             ____________________

        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK *, and MARCUS, Circuit
        Judges.
        MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
                Noble Prestige Limited lent Paul Thomas Horn $500,000 to
        pursue litigation against a telecommunications company. Under
        the terms of the loan, Horn agreed to repay Noble $5,000,000, or
        5% of the recovery from the litigation, whichever turned out to be
        greater. While the litigation was pending, however, a conserva-
        torship over Horn’s assets was commenced in a probate court in
        Denver, Colorado (the “Denver Probate Court”), due to a
        longstanding mental illness that interferes with Horn’s ability to
        make his own decisions or convey his wishes to others. Horn’s
        longtime counsel, Craig Thomas Galle, was appointed conservator
        and authorized to resolve the litigation on Horn’s behalf. The case
        settled, and the proceeds were placed in the conservatorship estate,
        subject to Galle’s management and the ultimate custody and con-
        trol of the Denver Probate Court.
              Following settlement, the Denver Probate Court refused to
        authorize the payment of $5,000,000 to Noble because of concerns

        * Judge Luck concurs in all but Section III.A.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023    Page: 3 of 34

        22-11520              Opinion of the Court                        3

        it had about the enforceability of the loan agreement. So, Noble
        decided to arbitrate its dispute with Horn in Hong Kong, ulti-
        mately obtaining arbitral awards that required Horn to pay Noble
        the debt owed under the loan agreement and Galle to pay Noble
        costs associated with the arbitration.
               With its international arbitral awards in hand, Noble moved
        to confirm the awards under the New York Convention in the
        United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
        Noble also sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting Galle,
        Horn, and Galle’s law firm, Galle Law Group (“GLG”), from trans-
        ferring, using, dissipating, or otherwise encumbering funds up to
        the amount owed to Noble under the arbitral awards. Galle and
        GLG (together, “Respondents”) opposed Noble’s request and
        moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted Noble’s
        request, entering what it termed a “temporary restraining order”
        that prohibited Galle from dissipating or transferring $10,000,000
        “notwithstanding any order(s) entered by the [Denver] Probate
        Court.” The district court also entered an order granting Respond-
        ents’ motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. Now, Re-
        spondents appeal both orders.
               After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument,
        we dismiss in part and vacate and remand in part. We do not have
        appellate jurisdiction to review the partial denial of the motion to
        dismiss. But we do have jurisdiction over the “temporary restrain-
        ing order” because it was actually a preliminary injunction. We
        hold, however, that the injunction was improperly entered, and
USCA11 Case: 22-11520        Document: 45-1        Date Filed: 10/16/2023        Page: 4 of 34

        4                         Opinion of the Court                     22-11520

        therefore vacate that order and remand the matter to the district
        court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                              I.
                                             A.
                The dispute giving rise to this litigation dates back to 2011,
        when Noble agreed to a Loan Facility Agreement (“Facility Agree-
        ment”) with Horn to fund a dispute in which he was involved with
        AT&T. Noble agreed to loan Horn $500,000, and, in exchange,
        Horn agreed to repay Noble $5,000,000 or 5% of Horn’s eventual
        recovery (sometimes referred to by the parties as Horn’s “Appreci-
        ated Value Interest”), whichever turned out to be greater. 1 The Fa-
        cility Agreement dictated that the parties would resolve any dispute
        arising out of the Agreement through arbitration in Hong Kong.
               To secure repayment of its loan, Noble also obtained “a se-
        curity interest (lien) in the sums paid by the ATT Parties to Horn
        on account of the Appreciated Value Interest” by entering into a
        “Security Agreement” with Horn. The Security Agreement

        1 “Appreciated Value Interest,” or “AVI,” refers to the subject of Horn’s dis-

        pute with AT&T: the value of Horn’s interest in a cellular telecommunications
        system called “Colorado 3.” Horn’s 1991 Assignment Agreement sold Horn’s
        interest in Colorado 3 to a predecessor of AT&T, and the Assignment Agree-
        ment styled the payment owed to Horn as his “AVI.” The later Facility Agree-
        ment between Horn and Noble tracked this language.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023    Page: 5 of 34

        22-11520              Opinion of the Court                        5

        limited the amount of the lien to “those portion[s] of the funds
        that equal the sums due Noble under the [Facility] Agreement.”
               Noble disbursed the loan principal to Horn between Decem-
        ber 2011 and February 2014. However, AT&T and Horn were un-
        able to resolve their dispute informally so, in 2014, Horn sued
        AT&T in a Colorado state court (the “AT&T litigation”).
                                        B.
              Horn suﬀers from a mental illness known as Functional
        Neurological Deﬁcit, also commonly referred to as Conversion
        Disorder, which causes various neurological impairments in those
        aﬄicted. Because of the impact this illness has on Horn’s ability to
        make his own decisions, in 2017, while the AT&T litigation was
        pending, a conservatorship proceeding was instituted in the Den-
        ver Probate Court (the “Conservatorship”) to ensure that any pro-
        ceeds owed to Horn from the AT&T litigation would not be
        wasted or lost.
               The Colorado Probate Code authorizes the State’s probate
        courts to institute a conservatorship to manage the estate of an
        adult if, after notice and hearing, the probate court determines
        (1) by clear and convincing evidence that “the individual is unable
        to manage property and business aﬀairs because the individual is
        unable to eﬀectively receive or evaluate information or both or to
        make or communicate decisions . . . or because the individual is
        missing, detained, or unable to return to the United States,” and
        (2) by a preponderance of the evidence, that “the individual has
        property that will be wasted or dissipated unless management is
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 6 of 34

        6                      Opinion of the Court                22-11520

        provided . . . .” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-14-401(1)(b) (2023). Based on
        expert opinion reports authored by Horn’s psychiatrist and neurol-
        ogist, as well as testimony provided by a clinical psychologist at an
        evidentiary hearing, the Denver Probate Court concluded that
        Horn was “incapable of making decisions concerning his lawsuit,”
        “incapable of communicating, giving input or direction, or re-
        sponding clearly with his Counsel and other professionals assisting
        him,” and “lacks the ability to make simple decisions.” Because
        “substantial assets belonging to Mr. Horn [would] be wasted, if not
        lost,” the Probate Court entered an order appointing Galle as “Spe-
        cial Conservator” to “make any and all decisions concerning” the
        AT&T litigation. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-14-412(3)(a) (2023). The
        Probate Court also appointed a guardian ad litem, James Britt, to
        represent and protect the best interests of Horn and report to the
        Probate Court as necessary.
               Following his appointment as Special Conservator, Galle
        agreed to settle the AT&T litigation on Horn’s behalf for
        $57,500,000, and the Denver Probate Court approved the settle-
        ment on August 23, 2017. The settlement proceeds (the “AT&T
        settlement funds”) were paid into Horn’s estate, and placed in ac-
        counts managed by Galle in his capacity as Special Conservator,
        subject to the ultimate control of the Denver Probate Court. As of
        September 2021, the Conservatorship estate contained funds ex-
        ceeding $30,000,000.
             Around two months after the AT&T litigation settled, in
        November 2017, Noble sought payment of the $5,000,000 it
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 7 of 34

        22-11520               Opinion of the Court                        7

        claimed it was owed under the Facility Agreement. The Denver
        Probate Court had authorized Galle, as Special Conservator, to pay
        certain expenditures and debts of Horn’s using the AT&T settle-
        ment funds, but expressly denied him permission to pay Noble be-
        cause of questions it had regarding the Facility Agreement’s en-
        forceability (given Horn’s mental state) and the potentially “usuri-
        ous” nature of the loan (inasmuch as that payment would net No-
        ble $4,500,000 on a $500,000 loan). Britt, the guardian ad litem, of-
        fered to pay Noble $2 million to resolve its claim against Horn’s
        estate, but Noble rejected this oﬀer. Instead, Noble ﬁled for arbi-
        tration against Horn in the Hong Kong International Arbitration
        Centre (“HKIAC”), under the terms of the Facility Agreement,
        seeking to collect on the debt.
                Once Galle learned of the arbitration in January 2018, he
        sought, and the Denver Probate Court granted him, speciﬁc au-
        thorization to represent Horn’s interests in the arbitration and to
        hire local Hong Kong counsel. Then, on March 21, 2018, the Den-
        ver Probate Court issued an order (the “Conservatorship Order”)
        terminating all of Horn’s pre-existing ﬁnancial powers of attorney
        and broadening the scope of Galle’s authority to that of a general
        Conservator -- tasking him with managing Horn’s estate in Horn’s
        best interest and empowering him to take a variety of diﬀerent ac-
        tions on behalf of the estate under Colorado law. See Colo. Rev.
        Stat. §§ 15-10-201(9) (2023), 15-14-411 (2023), 15-14-425 (2023). The
        Probate Court reiterated its ﬁnding that Horn was “unable to man-
        age property and business aﬀairs because of an inability to eﬀec-
        tively receive or evaluate information or both or to make or
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 8 of 34

        8                      Opinion of the Court                22-11520

        communicate decisions.” The Probate Court further found that
        Horn was “missing, detained, or unable to return to the United
        States.” According to an aﬃdavit submitted by Galle, Horn has not
        resided in the United States since at least 1996 and was last known
        to have resided in Thailand.
                                         C.
               Having obtained authorization from the Denver Probate
        Court to represent Horn’s interests in the HKIAC arbitration, Galle
        made an appearance before the arbitral tribunal and, through local
        counsel, ﬁled an answer on Horn’s behalf. The tribunal (the
        “HKIAC Tribunal”) concluded, however, that the orders of the
        Denver Probate Court authorizing Galle to represent Horn in the
        arbitration were insuﬃcient to convey that authority as a matter of
        Hong Kong Law, and, on March 29, 2019, issued an “Interim
        Award” prohibiting Galle from further participation in the arbitra-
        tion “until such time as proper authority is obtained.” In a separate
        award, the HKIAC Tribunal also ordered Galle to pay Noble’s costs
        incurred in resolving the issue of Galle’s authority, which totaled
        HK$3,250,000, plus interest (the “Partial Award on Costs”).
               The arbitration continued without an appearance by Horn
        or any other party authorized to represent him. Nevertheless, on
        May 14, 2020, the HKIAC Tribunal entered a “Final Award” against
        Horn that, among other things, ordered him to pay Noble “the sum
        of US$5,000,000 due as a debt under the Facility Agreement, alter-
        natively as damages for breach of the Facility Agreement,” plus
USCA11 Case: 22-11520     Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 10/16/2023    Page: 9 of 34

        22-11520              Opinion of the Court                       9

        attorneys’ fees, costs of HK$3,800,530.05, and prejudgment and
        postjudgment interest.
                                        D.
               With the Interim Award, Partial Award on Costs, and Final
        Award (together, the “Arbitral Awards”) in hand, Noble ﬁled a peti-
        tion to “[c]onﬁrm and [e]nforce” the Awards in the United States
        District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December
        18, 2020 (the “Petition”). Noble named Horn, GLG, and “Galle,
        individually,” as Respondents, and sought a judgment conﬁrming
        the three Arbitral Awards and awarding the sums set forth in those
        Awards, a temporary restraining order “in the form to be submitted
        to the Court,” and “such other relief as this Court deems just and
        proper, including costs.”
               On December 21, 2020, Noble ﬁled an ex parte application
        for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Respondents from
        transferring “all monies held or received by Respondents, or other
        ﬁnancial institutions, for the beneﬁt of any or more of the Re-
        spondents, and any ﬁnancial accounts tied thereto, up to the
        amounts under the Final Award . . . and the Partial Award on
        Costs,” and for an expedited hearing for a preliminary injunction.
        Noble’s application calculated that, as of December 18, 2020, the
        total amount owed to Noble by Horn and Galle was $7,075,917.81,
        with an additional $1,470.42 in interest accruing daily.
               Galle and GLG appeared in the action, ﬁled a response to the
        ex parte application, and moved to dismiss the Petition on several
        grounds, including that the district court lacked subject matter
USCA11 Case: 22-11520     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023    Page: 10 of 34

        10                     Opinion of the Court                22-11520

        jurisdiction over GLG and Galle, individually, because neither had
        signed an arbitration agreement with Noble. Noble opposed the
        motion to dismiss and ﬁled a reply in support of its ex parte appli-
        cation.
               The district court scheduled a hearing on Noble’s ex parte
        application (though it referred to the application as a “Motion for
        Preliminary Injunction”) and Respondents’ motion to dismiss for
        September 17, 2021. At the hearing, the district court took argu-
        ment from all parties regarding the motion to dismiss. However,
        the court only permitted Noble to present argument on its request
        for preliminary injunctive relief; Respondents were not allowed to
        present argument before the district court granted Noble’s request.
        The district court entered two orders. First, it granted in part and
        denied in part the Respondents’ motion to dismiss. As relevant
        here, the district court denied the motion to dismiss Noble’s claims
        against Galle individually because Galle had voluntarily partici-
        pated in the HKIAC arbitration proceedings and, thus, the court
        had subject matter jurisdiction over Noble’s claims to conﬁrm and
        enforce the Arbitral Awards against him.
              Second, the district court entered an order granting Noble’s
        request for a “temporary restraining order.” The district court or-
        dered Galle and GLG, “notwithstanding any order(s) entered by the
        Probate Court in In the Matter of: Paul Clayton Horn, Case no. 2017-
        PR-30071,” not to “dissipate, transfer, send, sequester, or deplete,
        or cause or permit the dissipation, transfer, sending, sequestration,
        or depletion of, the sum of US$ 10,000,000 [sic] from amount
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 11 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                         11

        remaining of the payment in respect of Horn’s AVI.” The district
        court did not consider whether to require Noble to post a bond,
        and did not specify any end date for the “temporary restraining or-
        der.”
                Respondents timely appealed, challenging the entry of both
        orders. Because the district court had only granted Respondents’
        motion to dismiss in part, and the district court had labeled its in-
        junctive order a “temporary restraining order,” this Court ordered
        the parties to ﬁle jurisdictional briefs setting forth the basis for ap-
        pellate jurisdiction. A panel of this Court construed Noble’s re-
        sponse as a motion to dismiss, but denied the motion, concluding
        that, although the district court had styled its injunction as a tem-
        porary restraining order, it was, in reality, a preliminary injunction
        and therefore immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
        The panel further concluded that the Court has pendent appellate
        jurisdiction over Noble’s claims against Galle, individually, as the
        district court had concluded in its dismissal order.
                                          II.
               We review questions of our jurisdiction, as well as the dis-
        trict court’s subject matter jurisdiction, de novo. United States v.
        Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 970 (11th Cir. 2019); Rubinstein v. Yehuda, 38
        F.4th 982, 992 (11th Cir. 2022). We review the district court’s grant
        of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Lebron v. Sec’y,
        Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 710 F.3d 1202, 1206 (11th Cir. 2013).
        But we review underlying questions of law, including the proper
        interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, de novo. Id.;
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 12 of 34

        12                      Opinion of the Court                   22-11520

        Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Pieniozek, 585 F.3d 1399, 1403 (11th
        Cir. 2009).
                Our analysis begins, at it must, with the issue of our jurisdic-
        tion to hear this appeal. See Peppers v. Cobb County, 835 F.3d 1289,
        1296 (11th Cir. 2016). We have jurisdiction over “appeals from all
        final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
        § 1291. A decision “is considered final and appealable only if it ends
        the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do
        but execute the judgment.” W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co. v. Kohlberg,
        Kravis, Roberts & Co., 566 F.3d 979, 984 (11th Cir. 2009). If the de-
        cision “does not end the litigation, it must come within an excep-
        tion to the final judgment rule to be reviewable on appeal.” Farr v.
        Heckler, 729 F.2d 1426, 1427 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Some of
        these exceptions are found in decisions of this Court and the Su-
        preme Court; others are provided by statute. See, e.g., Jenkins v.
        Prime Ins., 32 F.4th 1343, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2022). As relevant here,
        the courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from “[i]nter-
        locutory orders of the district courts . . . granting . . . injunctions.”
        28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
                Noble urges us to dismiss this appeal because neither ap-
        pealed order terminates the litigation in its entirety, and neither or-
        der falls within any of the recognized exceptions. While Congress
        has granted this Court jurisdiction to hear appeals from prelimi-
        nary injunctions, the injunctive order entered by the district court
        was, according to Noble, a temporary restraining order, not a pre-
        liminary injunction, and this Court has held that temporary
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 13 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                         13

        restraining orders are not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.
        § 1292(a)(1). McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1472 (11th Cir.
        1986). Thus, the argument goes, we lack the power to entertain
        Respondents’ appeal.
                 Noble is undoubtedly correct that “[i]t is well settled in this
        circuit that a TRO is not ordinarily appealable.” Id. But just be-
        cause the district court labeled its order a “temporary restraining
        order” does not make it so. “[T]he label placed on [such] an order
        . . . is not dispositive of its nature and appealability under section
        1292(a)(1).” Id. Rather, we look to three factors to determine
        whether an interlocutory injunctive order is immediately appeala-
        ble as a preliminary injunction: whether “(1) the duration of the re-
        lief sought or granted exceeds that allowed by a TRO (ten days),
        (2) the notice and hearing sought or afforded suggest that the relief
        sought was a preliminary injunction, and (3) the requested relief
        seeks to change the status quo.” AT&T Broadband v. Tech
        Commc’ns, Inc., 381 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004).
                Applying these factors, it is clear that Respondents have ap-
        pealed from a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining
        order. The district court did not temporally limit the order in any
        way. The order had no ending date. Moreover, Respondents op-
        posed Noble’s motion by filing a brief and by appearing at the dis-
        trict court’s hearing, and the court’s order plainly altered the status
        quo by placing restrictions on Galle’s authority as Conservator of
        the funds subject to the Conservatorship. See id. We therefore
        have jurisdiction to review the district court’s injunctive order.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023    Page: 14 of 34

        14                     Opinion of the Court                22-11520

                We do not, however, have jurisdiction over the district
        court’s dismissal order. That order dismissed Noble’s claims
        against GLG, but left Noble’s claims against the other Respondents
        pending. So the order obviously did not “end[] the litigation on the
        merits and leave[] nothing for the court to do but execute the judg-
        ment.” W.R. Huff, 566 F.3d at 984. Nor does the dismissal order
        fall into any other identifiable category of interlocutory order that
        would be immediately appealable. Contra 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Jenkins,
        32 F.4th at 1345-46.
               Nevertheless, Respondents contend that we may exercise
        our discretion to review the dismissal order under the doctrine of
        pendent appellate jurisdiction. Though a panel of this Court pre-
        viously agreed, upon further review and with the benefit of oral
        argument, we now conclude that we cannot exercise pendent ap-
        pellate jurisdiction over the district court’s motion to dismiss. See
        11th Cir. R. 27-1(g) (“A ruling on a motion or other interlocutory
        matter, whether entered by a single judge or a panel, is not binding
        upon the panel to which the appeal is assigned on the merits, and
        the merits panel may alter, amend, or vacate it.”).
               The doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction allows us to
        review certain decisions that are not typically appealable “if the
        non-appealable matters are ‘inextricably intertwined with an ap-
        pealable decision or if review of the former decision is necessary to
        ensure meaningful review of the latter.’” Smith v. LePage, 834 F.3d
        1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Jackson v. Humphrey, 776 F.3d
        1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2015)). The doctrine does not apply here,
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 15 of 34

        22-11520               Opinion of the Court                         15

        though, because the issue of the district court’s subject matter ju-
        risdiction over Noble’s claims against Galle, individually, is neither
        inextricably intertwined with nor necessary to ensure meaningful
        review of Respondents’ challenges to the district court’s prelimi-
        nary injunction. See Summit Med. Assocs., P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d
        1326, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the portion of a district
        court’s order denying a motion to dismiss on standing grounds was
        not “inextricably intertwined with” or “necessary to ensure mean-
        ingful review of” another portion of the order denying a motion on
        Eleventh Amendment grounds, because the appellant’s standing
        arguments were “completely irrelevant to” their Eleventh Amend-
        ment arguments) (internal quotation marks omitted).
               The preliminary injunction prohibits Galle from transfer-
        ring, spending, or diverting funds that are held in Conservatorship
        accounts and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Denver Probate
        Court. Thus, the preliminary injunction necessarily runs against
        Galle only in his capacity as Conservator -- not against him individ-
        ually. So even if we were to conclude that the district court lacked
        jurisdiction over Noble’s claims against Galle in his individual ca-
        pacity, that finding would have no bearing on the district court’s
        authority to enter a preliminary injunction against Galle as Conser-
        vator. Put simply, we need not resolve the jurisdictional question
        to resolve the issues raised about the lawfulness of the district
        court’s preliminary injunction. See id.; see also Moniz v. City of Fort
        Lauderdale, 145 F.3d 1278, 1281 n.3 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that
        we lacked pendent appellate jurisdiction to review standing issue
USCA11 Case: 22-11520        Document: 45-1          Date Filed: 10/16/2023        Page: 16 of 34

        16                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11520

        where the appellants had properly appealed the district court’s re-
        jection of their qualified immunity defense).
               Because we cannot assert pendent appellate jurisdiction
        over the district court’s dismissal order, we dismiss Respondents’
        appeal insofar as it challenges the district court’s denial of the mo-
        tion to dismiss, and vacate the prior panel’s order to the extent it is
        inconsistent with that conclusion.
                                              III.
                We turn then to the merits of Respondents’ challenges to
        the district court’s preliminary injunction. We hold that the injunc-
        tion must be vacated for two separate and independent reasons,
        either of which would, standing alone, require vacatur. First, the
        district court was barred from entering the order under the doc-
        trine of “prior exclusive jurisdiction.” And second, the district court
        lacked the authority to issue preliminary injunctive relief freezing
        Respondents’ assets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. 2
                                               A.
             At the outset, we address whether the district court had the
        power to enter a preliminary injunction restraining $10,000,000 of

        2 Respondents also argue that the district court abused its discretion in issuing

        preliminary injunctive relief for two separate reasons: (1) Noble failed to es-
        tablish that it would suffer irreparable harm absent entry of an injunction, and
        (2) the district court failed to even consider whether to require Noble to post
        a bond before issuing the injunction. Because we hold that the district court
        lacked the power to issue the injunction in the first place, we have no occasion
        to reach these arguments.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 17 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                         17

        the AT&T settlement funds. Respondents first challenge the in-
        junction on the ground that, under the doctrine of “prior exclusive
        jurisdiction” (also sometimes referred to as “Princess Lida” absten-
        tion), the district court was barred from entering an order that
        sought to assert jurisdiction and control over funds that are already
        under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Denver Probate
        Court. See Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456,
        466 (1939). We agree.
                                          1.
                Under the “ancient and oft-repeated doctrine of prior exclu-
        sive jurisdiction,” when “a court of competent jurisdiction has ob-
        tained possession, custody, or control of particular property, that
        possession may not be disturbed by any other court.” Applied Un-
        derwriters, Inc. v. Lara, 37 F.4th 579, 591 (9th Cir. 2022) (alteration
        adopted) (citation omitted). Put another way, once one court has
        properly asserted in rem jurisdiction over a res, other courts are
        “precluded from exercising [their] jurisdiction over the same res to
        defeat or impair the [first] court’s jurisdiction.” Kline v. Burke Con-
        str. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 229 (1922); see also Princess Lida, 305 U.S. at
        466 (“[I]f the two suits are in rem, or quasi in rem, so that the court,
        or its officer, has possession or must have control of the property
        which is the subject of the litigation in order to proceed with the
        cause and grant the relief sought the jurisdiction of the one court
        must yield to that of the other.”); 13F Charles Alan Wright & Ar-
        thur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3631 & n.16 (3d ed.
        2023) (“[W]hen a state or federal court of competent jurisdiction
        has obtained possession, custody, or control of particular property,
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023       Page: 18 of 34

        18                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11520

        that authority and power over the property may not be disturbed
        by any other court.”) (collecting cases).
                This rule serves an important function in our federal sys-
        tem of government: where two separate courts must navigate their
        independent -- and sometimes overlapping -- jurisdictions, the rule
        helps avoid the needless conflict that comes when one court at-
        tempts to interfere with the valid process of another. See Covell v.
        Heyman, 111 U.S. 176, 182 (1884). But the prior exclusive jurisdic-
        tion doctrine is not merely a “principle of comity.” Id. As the Su-
        preme Court explained over a century ago, “between state courts
        and those of the United States, it is something more. It is a principle
        of right and of law, and therefore of necessity. It leaves nothing to
        discretion or mere convenience.” Id.
               [W]hen one takes into its jurisdiction a specific thing,
               that res is as much withdrawn from the judicial power
               of the other as if it had been carried physically into a
               different territorial sovereignty. To attempt to seize
               it by a foreign process is futile and void. . . . No judi-
               cial process, whatever form it may assume, can have
               any lawful authority outside of the limits of the juris-
               diction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and
               any attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is
               nothing less th[a]n lawless violence.
        Id. at 182-83.
               Thus, the doctrine operates to bar a subsequent court’s as-
        sertion of in rem jurisdiction over a res that would interfere with a
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 19 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                         19

        prior court’s exclusive control of that res. See United States v.
        $270,000 in U.S. Currency, Plus Interest, 1 F.3d 1146, 1147-48 (11th
        Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (citing Kline, 260 U.S. at 229); Applied Under-
        writers, 37 F.4th at 591 (same); United States v. One Parcel Property
        Located at Lot 85, 100 F.3d 740, 742 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Princess
        Lida, 305 U.S. at 465-66). The doctrine extends even to cases in
        which property has not “been actually seized under judicial process
        before a second suit is instituted.” United States v. Bank of N.Y. &
        Tr. Co., 296 U.S. 463, 477 (1936). “It applies as well where suits are
        brought to marshal assets, administer trusts, or liquidate estates,
        and in suits of a similar nature” -- in other words, cases “where, to
        give effect to its jurisdiction, the court must control the property.”
        Id.; accord Kline, 260 U.S. at 231-32; Applied Underwriters, 37 F.4th at
        591-93.
                Notably, however, this does not mean that the doctrine
        reaches so far as to bar any exercise of jurisdiction related to a res
        that is already under another court’s control.
               Where the judgment sought is strictly in personam,
               for the recovery of money or for an injunction com-
               pelling or restraining action by the defendant, both a
               state court and a federal court having concurrent ju-
               risdiction may proceed with the litigation, at least un-
               til judgment is obtained in one court which may be
               set up as res []judicata in the other.
        Penn Gen. Cas. Co. v. Pennsylvania ex rel. Schnader, 294 U.S. 189, 195
        (1935); accord Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946) (collecting
USCA11 Case: 22-11520        Document: 45-1         Date Filed: 10/16/2023        Page: 20 of 34

        20                        Opinion of the Court                       22-11520

        cases); see also United States v. Certified Indus., Inc., 361 F.2d 857, 860
        (2d Cir. 1966) (quoting Markham, 326 U.S. at 494); Citibank, N.A. v.
        Data Lease Fin. Corp., 645 F.2d 333, 338-39 (5th Cir. Unit B May
        1981) 3 (citing Kline, 260 U.S. at 229); Lot 85, 100 F.3d at 743 (quoting
        Penn Gen., 294 U.S. at 198); State Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak
        Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 811 (9th Cir. 2003) (quot-
        ing Penn Gen., 294 U.S. at 195); Goncalves ex rel. Goncalves v. Rady
        Child.’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1254 (9th Cir. 2017) (same).
                The Supreme Court’s decision in Penn General provides a
        useful illustration of the doctrine’s scope. There, shareholders of
        an insolvent insurance company brought suit in federal district
        court alleging that the company’s officers had misappropriated
        funds and seeking the appointment of a receiver to liquidate the
        company and distribute its assets. Penn Gen., 294 U.S. at 191-92.
        Shortly thereafter, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General filed a similar
        suit in state court, seeking an order taking the assets of the com-
        pany into the possession of the insurance commissioner for liqui-
        dation. Id. at 192. Nearly simultaneously, the two courts issued
        competing preliminary injunctions prohibiting the company and
        its officers or agents from transacting any business and from dis-
        posing of the company’s property and enjoining all other persons
        from interfering with the company in any way. Id. at 192-93. The
        state-court action eventually proceeded to judgment, resulting in a

        3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),

        this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
        cuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 21 of 34

        22-11520               Opinion of the Court                         21

        final decree directing the acting insurance commissioner to take
        possession of and liquidate the company’s assets. Id. at 193. After
        the insurance company refused to comply, citing the conflicting
        preliminary injunction issued by the federal district court, the
        State’s Attorney General appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme
        Court, which affirmed the state court’s decree. Id.
                The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve
        the “impasse” between the federal and state courts, each of which
        had attempted to assert jurisdiction over the same subject matter
        -- “the liquidation of the business, and assets of the insolvent cor-
        poration” -- and each of which was “unable to perform its function
        without acquiring possession and control of the property.” Id. at
        190-91, 194. The Court determined that the federal court had first
        acquired jurisdiction over the res because the federal plaintiffs had
        filed their complaint before the Pennsylvania Attorney General in-
        itiated the state-court action. Id. at 196-97. As a result, the federal
        district court “alone c[ould] rightfully assert control over the prop-
        erty and proceed with litigation which affects that control, and it
        alone c[ould] determine how far it w[ould] permit any other court
        to interfere.” Id. at 197 (citations omitted).
                That did not mean, however, that the state court was en-
        tirely denuded of the power to entertain an action concerning the
        insurance company. The Supreme Court explained that the state
        court could still “make orders which do not conflict with the au-
        thority of the court having jurisdiction over the control and dispo-
        sition of the property,” such as ordering a receiver to surrender
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 22 of 34

        22                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11520

        property to the court having prior jurisdiction or to “take posses-
        sion and proceed with the liquidation when the court having juris-
        diction over the property relinquishes it.” Id. at 198. But the fed-
        eral court’s prior assertion of jurisdiction over the insolvent com-
        pany and its assets deprived the state court of the power to enter
        orders that would disturb the federal court’s exclusive control, in-
        cluding the injunction which prohibited the company from dispos-
        ing of its assets and prohibited others from taking possession of
        them. See id. at 198-99. The Supreme Court therefore concluded
        that Pennsylvania’s high court had “erred in affirming” the orders
        “direct[ing] the insurance commissioner to take possession of the
        business and property of the company,” “enjoin[ing] the company
        from surrendering its books, records, and assets to any person
        other than the commissioner, and enjoin[ing] others from taking
        possession of them.” Id. at 199; see also $270,000 in U.S. Currency, 1
        F.3d at 1149; Certified Indus., 361 F.2d at 860; Applied Underwriters,
        37 F.4th at 591-92.
                Applying these principles to the case before us, it is clear, as
        an initial matter, that the Conservatorship predates the federal dis-
        trict court action. The Conservatorship commenced on March 7,
        2017, several years before Noble moved to conﬁrm the Arbitral
        Awards in federal district court in late 2020. So, if the Conserva-
        torship is in fact an in rem proceeding, the prior exclusive jurisdic-
        tion rule would bar the district court from entering any order that
        asserts in rem jurisdiction over Conservatorship assets, thereby dis-
        turbing the Denver Probate Court’s exclusive control of the res. See
        Penn Gen., 294 U.S. at 199.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 23 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                          23

               There can be no question that the Denver Probate Court has
        asserted in rem jurisdiction over the assets of the Conservatorship
        estate. Indeed, counsel for Noble conceded this point at oral argu-
        ment in our Court. Oral Argument at 15:45-16:02. Under Colo-
        rado law, once a conservatorship has commenced, the probate
        court obtains “[e]xclusive jurisdiction” over the protected person’s
        estate “to determine how [that] estate . . . must be managed, ex-
        pended, or distributed.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-14-402(1)(b) (2023).
        While the probate court “may appoint a limited or unlimited con-
        servator” to manage the estate and take certain actions on behalf
        of the protected person for his or her beneﬁt, see id. §§ 15-14-401(1)
        (2023), 15-10-201(9) (2023), 15-14-411 (2023), 15-14-425 (2023), the
        assets of the estate remain subject to the ultimate custody and con-
        trol of the probate court, which may exercise “all the powers over
        the estate and business aﬀairs of the protected person that the per-
        son could exercise if the person were an adult, present, and not un-
        der conservatorship or other protective order.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §
        15-14-410(1)(b) (2023). Thus, “to give eﬀect to its jurisdiction, the
        court must control the property.” Bank of New York, 296 U.S. at 477
        (concluding that state court liquidation proceeding in which assets
        of insurance company had been vested in a statutory liquidator was
        in rem); see Black v. Black, 482 P.3d 460, 474-75 (Colo. App. 2020) (not-
        ing that Colorado probate courts exercise in rem jurisdiction over
        assets of the conservatorship estate); Applied Underwriters, 37 F.4th
        at 592 (concluding that state court conservatorship proceeding in
        which assets of insurance company had been vested in state insur-
        ance commissioner subject to probate court’s control was in rem).
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 24 of 34

        24                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11520

                As a consequence, the Denver Probate Court “alone can
        rightfully assert control over the property” that makes up the Con-
        servatorship estate. Penn Gen., 294 U.S. at 197. Yet, here, the district
        court entered a preliminary injunction ordering Galle not to “dissi-
        pate, transfer, send, sequester, or deplete, or cause or permit the
        dissipation, transfer, sending, sequestration, or depletion of, the
        sum of US$ 10,000,000 [sic] from amount remaining of the pay-
        ment in respect of Horn’s AVI,” “notwithstanding any order(s) en-
        tered by the Probate Court in In the Matter of: Paul Clayton Horn,
        Case no. 2017-PR-30071.” To give eﬀect to its order, the federal
        district court would have to assert control over the $10,000,000
        “from [the] amount remaining of the payment in respect to Horn’s
        AVI” -- in other words, the AT&T settlement funds. See Bank of
        New York, 296 U.S. at 477. Because these funds are part of the Con-
        servatorship estate, the district court’s order prohibits Galle from
        taking any action with respect to funds that are properly within the
        custody and control of the Denver Probate Court. See Penn Gen.,
        294 U.S. at 197. Under the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, the
        district court’s entry of the preliminary injunction represents an as-
        sertion of in rem jurisdiction that the court was powerless to make.
        See id. at 199.
               Of course, the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine does not
        dictate that Noble’s action be dismissed. After all, Noble’s underly-
        ing Petition seeks to conﬁrm and enforce Arbitral Awards that pro-
        vide in personam relief against Respondents; the Awards order Re-
        spondents to pay Noble monetary sums without any reference to a
        discrete res. Thus, the district court properly retains jurisdiction to
USCA11 Case: 22-11520       Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2023       Page: 25 of 34

        22-11520                 Opinion of the Court                           25

        entertain Noble’s claims for in personam relief. See id. at 198. But,
        because the district court reached beyond the scope of the in perso-
        nam action ﬁled by Noble to enter a preliminary injunction that as-
        serted control over a res already subject to the exclusive control of
        the Denver Probate Court, that order must be vacated. See id. at
        199; Farmers’ Loan & Tr. Co. v. Lake St. Elevated R.R. Co., 177 U.S. 51,
        62 (1900) (holding that state court erred by “enjoining and restrain-
        ing” party from “proceeding with or prosecuting . . . foreclosure
        suit in the circuit court of the United States” because the federal
        court had ﬁrst acquired jurisdiction over the property upon ﬁling
        of complaint seeking foreclosure); Certiﬁed Indus., 361 F.2d at 862
        (holding that district court’s entry of preliminary injunction that
        “directly interfere[d] with and [was] in conﬂict with disposition of
        the fund under control of the state court” was error); $270,000 in
        U.S. Currency, 1 F.3d at 1149 (vacating district court’s forfeiture or-
        der on prior exclusive jurisdiction ground where state court had
        not yet relinquished its in rem jurisdiction over property by “en-
        ter[ing] a ﬁnal order disposing of the property”).
                                            2.
                Noble offers two rejoinders, but neither saves the injunc-
        tion.
                First, Noble argues that Respondents waived their prior ex-
        clusive jurisdiction argument by failing to raise it in the district
        court. To preserve an issue for appeal, “a party must ‘clearly pre-
        sent it to the district court . . . in such a way as to afford the district
        court an opportunity to recognize and rule on it.’” Belevich v.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 26 of 34

        26                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11520

        Thomas, 17 F.4th 1048, 1051 n.1 (11th Cir. 2021) (alteration in Bele-
        vich) (quoting In re Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 905 F.2d 1457, 1462
        (11th Cir. 1990)). Contrary to Noble’s argument, however, Re-
        spondents repeatedly argued that the Denver Probate Court had
        exclusive jurisdiction and control over the AT&T settlement funds.
               In their brief opposing Noble’s request for a temporary re-
        straining order, under the heading “Jurisdiction,” Respondents said
        that the district court “must abstain from exercising jurisdiction
        over funds held under the control and supervision of the Denver
        Probate Court” because the Conservator, like “a trustee in bank-
        ruptcy or a receiver, holds property ‘in custodia legis.’” Respond-
        ents expressly asserted that “[a]ny injunctive relief in this case
        against the Conservator would affect the Probate Court’s exclusive
        jurisdiction of the Horn assets.” And, at the district court hearing
        on Noble’s motion, counsel for Respondents argued that “we have
        disputed the entry of any type of . . . preliminary injunction tying
        up these funds that are in the custody of the Denver probate court.”
        While Respondents did not specifically direct the district court to
        the Princess Lida case or refer to their argument as “Princess Lida
        abstention,” that omission is of no moment. A party is obviously
        not limited to citing the same authority or offering the same argu-
        ment on appeal as it did before the district court, as long as the new
        authority or argument is still offered in support of an issue that has
        been properly preserved. See Pugliese v. Pukka Dev., Inc., 550 F.3d
        1299, 1304 n.3 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Although new claims or issues
        may not be raised, new arguments relating to preserved claims may
        be reviewed on appeal.” (emphasis in original)). Respondents’
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 27 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                         27

        submissions were more than sufficient to put the district court
        squarely on notice of Respondents’ prior exclusive jurisdiction ar-
        gument and to give the court the opportunity to rule on it. See
        Belevich, 17 F.4th at 1051 n.1.
               Next, Noble argues that the Constitution’s Supremacy
        Clause bars application of the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine.
        Noble’s Petition ultimately seeks to confirm and enforce the
        Awards under the New York Convention. Because the New York
        Convention is incorporated into federal law by the Federal Arbitra-
        tion Act, and, under the Supremacy Clause, federal law reigns su-
        preme over state law, Noble reasons that any “purported exclusive
        jurisdiction of the Denver Probate Court, . . . purported application
        of Colorado probate law, [or] purported doctrines of abstention
        and deference to state probate[] courts, etc. ha[s] no application
        here.”
                Whether the district court had the power to issue prelimi-
        nary injunctive relief that would interfere with the Denver Probate
        Court’s prior exclusive jurisdiction over the AT&T settlement
        funds does not implicate any conflict between the New York Con-
        vention and state law, or any other law for that matter. See Murphy
        v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1479 (2018) (noting
        that the Supremacy Clause “simply provides ‘a rule of decision’”
        and “specifies that federal law is supreme in case of a conflict with
        state law” (citation omitted)). If anything, the prior exclusive juris-
        diction doctrine implicates potential conflicts between the exercise
        of jurisdiction of state courts and federal courts over a res -- not
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 28 of 34

        28                      Opinion of the Court                   22-11520

        conflicts between state and federal law. Noble does not explain
        how or why the Supremacy Clause would prevent the district court
        from asserting jurisdiction in light of the state court’s prior exclu-
        sive jurisdiction over the res, simply because the underlying federal
        action has been brought under the New York Convention. Nor
        does it offer any authority standing for that proposition.
               Under the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction, the district
        court’s entry of preliminary injunctive relief over the AT&T settle-
        ment funds must be vacated.
                                           B.
                Next, we consider Respondents’ alternate and independent
        argument that the district court improperly granted a preliminary
        injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. We conclude
        that, since Noble’s Petition seeks only legal (not equitable) relief,
        the district court lacked the power to issue preliminary injunctive
        relief freezing Respondents’ assets pursuant to Rule 65.
                                           1.
               “It is axiomatic that equitable relief is only available where
        there is no adequate remedy at law; cases in which the remedy
        sought is the recovery of money damages do not fall within the
        jurisdiction of equity.” Rosen v. Cascade Int’l, Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1527
        (11th Cir. 1994). Relying on this “fundamental principle of equity
        jurisprudence,” we have often explained that “‘a court may not
        reach a defendant’s assets unrelated to the underlying litigation and
        freeze them so that they may be preserved to satisfy a potential
        money judgment.’” Id. (quoting Mitsubishi Int’l Corp. v. Cardinal
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 29 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                          29

        Textile Sales, Inc., 14 F.3d 1507, 1521 (11th Cir. 1994)). In other
        words, in “[c]ases in which the remedy sought is the recovery of
        money (whether as collection on a debt or as damages),” a district
        court is powerless to grant preliminary injunctive relief under Rule
        65 because the plaintiff’s claims “do not fall within the jurisdiction
        of equity,” Mitsubishi, 14 F.3d at 1518, and “preliminary injunctive
        relief [is] of a different ‘character’ from the final relief sought and
        obtainable in the litigation (the prohibition of certain conduct, not
        the payment of money damages),” Rosen, 21 F.3d at 1528 (quoting
        De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).
        See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S.
        308, 333 (1999).
                That is precisely the case here. The district court lacked the
        authority to enter a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 because
        Noble’s Petition has not asserted any equitable claims nor does it
        ultimately seek any equitable relief. The Petition lists two counts:
        Count I, labeled “The Court Should Confirm and Enforce the
        Awards Under the New York Convention,” and Count II, labeled
        “The Court Should Issue a Temporary Restraining Order.” As the
        title suggests, Count II is not a claim for final relief, but rather a
        request for interim relief in the form of a temporary restraining or-
        der under Rule 65(b) that Noble included in its Petition. See FED.
        R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1).
              Thus, the only claim for “final relief” that is “obtainable” in
        Noble’s Petition is found in Count I. Rosen, 21 F.3d at 1528. In this
        claim, the Petition seeks relief in the form of (1) a judgment
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 30 of 34

        30                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11520

        “confirming and enforcing” the Arbitral Awards against Respond-
        ents, and retaining jurisdiction to enforce that judgment; (2) a judg-
        ment awarding Noble $5,000,000 as debt owed under the Facility
        Agreement, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and
        HK$3,800,530.05 as costs (the same sums awarded to Noble in the
        Arbitral Awards); and (3) “such other relief as this Court deems just
        and proper, including costs.”
                None of this is equitable in nature. The Arbitral Awards that
        Noble seeks to conﬁrm and enforce were issued as part of an arbi-
        tration brought by Noble to collect on the debt established by the
        Facility Agreement. As a secured creditor, Noble had two basic op-
        tions upon Horn’s default: it could foreclose on the lien it held
        against the AT&T settlement funds, or “ignore its security interest
        and obtain a judgment on the underlying obligation and proceed
        by execution and levy.” 4 James J. White, Robert S. Summers, &
        Robert A. Hillman, Uniform Commercial Code: Practitioner Treatise Se-
        ries § 34:7 (6th ed. 2023); accord 51 Am. Jur. 2d Liens § 79 (West
        2023) (“Claims for enforcement of a lien are separate and distinct
        from an underlying breach of contract claim.”); id. at § 79 n.6
        (“Where there is a debt secured by a note, which is, in turn, secured
        by a lien, the lien and the note constitute separate obligations; thus,
        the right to recover on the promissory note and the right to fore-
        close may be enforced separately.”). The actions associated with
        each option are distinct. An action to reduce the obligation estab-
        lished by the promissory note to judgment is one at law, and seeks
        a judgment against the debtor in personam, whereas a foreclosure
        action is equitable in nature, and the relief sought is in rem, “limited
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 31 of 34

        22-11520               Opinion of the Court                         31

        to the property.” United States v. Alvarado, 5 F.3d 1425, 1428-29 (11th
        Cir. 1993); accord 1 Dan B. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies § 2.6(3) (2d
        ed. 1993).
               Signiﬁcantly, in pursuing arbitration before the HKIAC Tri-
        bunal, Noble elected to obtain an award against Horn in personam
        on the underlying debt, rather than attempt to foreclose on its se-
        curity interest. Counsel for Noble conceded this point at oral argu-
        ment, Oral Argument at 16:08-17:00, and the HKIAC Tribunal con-
        ﬁrmed as much in its Award:
               Claimant issued these proceedings for payment of a
               debt and/or damages for breach of contract against
               Respondent, and for related relief. On Claimant’s
               case these are claims against Respondent in personam.
               The Tribunal agrees. The subject matter of this arbi-
               tration is not an in rem claim against the sums recov-
               ered for Respondent pursuant to the AT&T Action.
                Accordingly, the Awards issued by the HKIAC Tribunal were
        legal, rather than equitable in nature. An action in district court to
        conﬁrm and enforce an in personam award rendered by an arbitral
        panel remains the conﬁrmation of an in personam award. See EGI-
        VSR, LLC v. Coderch Mitjans, 963 F.3d 1112, 1124-25 (11th Cir. 2020).
        Nor does Noble’s generic request for “such other relief as this
        Court deems just and proper, including costs,” transform the con-
        ﬁrmation of an in personam award into an action seeking equitable
        relief. See Rosen, 21 F.3d at 1526 n.12 (“The mere incantation of
USCA11 Case: 22-11520         Document: 45-1         Date Filed: 10/16/2023   Page: 32 of 34

        32                         Opinion of the Court                  22-11520

        such boilerplate language does not convert a legal cause of action
        into a legitimate request for equitable relief.”).
                Put simply, when Noble ﬁled its Petition in federal district
        court, it elected to pursue conﬁrmation of several in personam
        awards that granted only legal relief. Noble did not attempt to fore-
        close on its lien -- whether before the arbitral panel, or before the
        district court, as Noble’s counsel admitted during oral argument. 4
        Oral Argument at 18:50-19:00. Nor, ﬁnally, did Noble assert any
        other claim that ultimately sought equitable relief.
               In sum, Noble’s Petition fails to invoke the equitable juris-
        diction of the district court, and, therefore, the issuance of a pre-
        liminary injunction under Rule 65 was improper. See Rosen, 21 F.3d
        at 1528; Mitsubishi, 14 F.3d at 1520-21.
                                                2.
             Noble tries to resist this conclusion, oﬀering two arguments.
        We remain unpersuaded.
               First, Noble says that the existence of a lien against the
        AT&T settlement funds under the Security Agreement, standing
        alone, is suﬃcient to give the district court the equitable authority
        to issue preliminary injunctive relief under Rule 65. But the essen-
        tial question is not whether a plaintiﬀ has a lien against property; it
        is whether the plaintiﬀ has sought to foreclose on that lien. See
        Rosen, 21 F.3d at 1529-30; Mitsubishi, 14 F.3d at 1518-19. Until and

        4 We take no position on whether Noble could successfully state a claim for

        foreclosure of its lien in the Southern District of Florida.
USCA11 Case: 22-11520      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 33 of 34

        22-11520                Opinion of the Court                          33

        unless it has done so, Noble has not invoked the district court’s eq-
        uitable power. Noble did not assert any equitable claim in this ac-
        tion. It never moved to enforce its lien in the district court, or, as
        best we can tell, anywhere else.
                Noble has not cited any case in support of its claim for equi-
        table relief. See Deckert v. Indep. Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 288, 290-
        91 (1940) (holding that preliminary injunction was warranted
        where “the bill state[d] a cause [of action] for equitable relief ”);
        United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 379 U.S. 378, 379, 385 (1965)
        (holding that preliminary injunction preventing dissipation of as-
        sets was warranted where plaintiﬀ sought foreclosure of tax lien);
        Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333 (holding that preliminary injunctive
        relief freezing defendants’ assets was not warranted because in-
        junctive relief was historically unavailable where plaintiﬀ sought
        only money damages for breach of contract); SEC v. ETS Payphones,
        Inc., 408 F.3d 727, 734 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“[T]he asset
        freeze is justiﬁed as a means of preserving funds for the equitable
        remedy of disgorg[e]ment.”); United States v. Askins & Miller Ortho-
        paedics, P.A., 924 F.3d 1348, 1361 (11th Cir. 2019) (aﬃrming district
        court’s preliminary injunction and expressly distinguishing Rosen,
        Mitsubishi, and Grupo Mexicano because “[h]ere, in contrast, the
        IRS’s complaint asked for a permanent injunction providing pro-
        spective equitable relief for anticipated future violations -- the same
        relief sought by the preliminary injunction at issue.”).
              Second, Noble claims that, in any event, Rule 65 authorized
        preliminary injunctive relief because Noble’s action seeks to
USCA11 Case: 22-11520     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 34 of 34

        34                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11520

        enforce a foreign arbitral award under a treaty of the United States.
        Granting a preliminary injunction, Noble asserts, would “serve[]
        the public interest because it [would] advance[] the strong federal
        policy favoring arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards,
        especially foreign arbitral awards in particular.” Br. of Appellee at
        35. But the question whether preliminary injunctive relief would
        serve the public interest has no bearing on whether the district
        court has the equitable power to enter such relief in the ﬁrst place.
        Noble’s claims remain legal claims, and that those claims were
        brought pursuant to the New York Convention, standing alone,
        does not convert them into claims sounding in equity.
               The district court lacked the power to issue an order freez-
        ing the AT&T settlement funds pending judgment, and we must
        vacate the district court’s entry of the preliminary injunction.
                Accordingly, we DISMISS Respondents’ appeal to the ex-
        tent it challenges the district court’s denial of their motion to dis-
        miss, VACATE the district court’s entry of preliminary injunctive
        relief, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent
        with this opinion.
            DISMISSED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN
        PART.