Under Rule 4(n), how can a court assert jurisdiction over a defendant's property?

The assertion of jurisdiction over a defendant's property under Rule 4(n) primarily relies on state law, which provides the framework for attaching or seizing property to establish jurisdiction when traditional means of service have not been successful. This rule emphasizes the importance of attempting reasonable service efforts before resorting to jurisdictional claims based on property.

This option recognizes that courts can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant's property if personal jurisdiction cannot be obtained through conventional service methods. By relying on state law provisions, courts can use mechanisms such as property attachment or garnishment to effectively bring the defendant into the jurisdiction of the court. Such actions reinforce the notion that a state may exercise authority over defendants who own property within its jurisdiction, even if they cannot be personally served.

Other options do not provide a viable means for establishing jurisdiction over a defendant's property under Rule 4(n) and do not align with the procedures set out in this rule. For instance, merely filing a general motion or defaulting the defendant does not inherently grant jurisdiction based on property. Additionally, requiring the defendant to be present does not accurately reflect how jurisdictions can operate in relation to property, as ownership of property within a state can serve as a valid basis for jurisdiction independently of the defendant's physical presence.