Case ID: f-appx_221/html/0892-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PIONEER MILITARY LENDING OF GEORGIA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill McCOLLUM, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-12162.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 27, 2007.
    Jerome W. Hoffman, Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee, FL, Steven L. Brannock, Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, FL, George E. Leonard, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Lynn C. Hearn, Atty. Gen., Dep. Solicitor General, Christopher M. Kise, Florida Solicitor General, James Andrew McKee, Office of the Solicitor General, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Pioneer Military Lending of Georgia (“PMLG”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. Before the district court, PMLG sought to enjoin the state of Florida from investigating its lending practices and subpoenaing its documents on the grounds that such regulatory activity violated the Commerce Clause. PMLG argued that since its loans were limited to non-residents of Florida, the state’s interest in regulating PMLG loans was insufficient to justify the burden on PMLG’s unique lending practices. Finding that PMLG had failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the district court denied their motion.

The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is a decision within the discretion of the district court. Carillon Importers, Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Intern. Group, Ltd., 112 F.3d 1125, 1126 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam). Our review of this decision is extremely narrow in scope and we will reverse only if there is a clear abuse of discretion. Id. Furthermore, we pay no attention to the merits of the controversy beyond that necessary to determine the presence or absence of such an abuse of discretion. Id. We find that PMLG has failed to demonstrate that reversal is warranted under this extremely deferential standard of review. Accordingly, we affirm the decision below.

AFFIRMED.