With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". now held solely by Nancy McGinn and because she has not been named as a defendant or relief defendant, the residence was not included in the TRO asset freeze nor in the preliminary injunction to which he consented. Dkt. No. 71. There exists no dispute that the residence is now held solely in Nancy McGinn’s name. Therefore, while the SEC would appear to have demonstrated sufficient cause to include the residence in the asset freeze as with the Smiths’ assets transferred into Lynn Smith’s name alone, Nancy McGinn is not a party to this action in any capacity. Unless and until she is, this Court lacks jurisdiction to restrain her actions with respect to any property presently titled to her alone. See NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu Television & Radio, Inc., 124 F.R.D. 120, 134-35 (W.D.La.1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Niskayuna residence now

A: holding that the legal title holders to real property held it in constructive trust for the equitable title holder who was entitled to the real property based on an earlier contract
B: holding that court lacked jurisdiction to restrain property allegedly involved in fraudulent transfer until question of title holder had been resolved
C: holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent
D: holding that suit arose from alleged fraudulent transfer of real property located in texas even though the allegedly fraudulent assignment occurred in california
B.