United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3786

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

2035, Inc., a corporation

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Robert Larry Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA, doing business as

QLasers PMA

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City

____________

 Submitted: August 31, 2016

Filed: September 6, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
In Lytle v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 612 F. App’x 861 (8th Cir.

2015), we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Lytle’s declaratory judgment

action, but remanded for further consideration the district court’s preliminary 1

injunction in the government’s separate civil enforcement action against Lytle under

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.

After considering during its post-remand hearing the eight objections that

Lytle’s counsel raised with respect to the court’s proposed permanent injunction, the

district court entered the injunction, from which Lytle now appeals.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude

that the only issues before us are whether subject matter jurisdiction exists and

whether Lytle’s preserved objections to the permanent injunction have merit. See

Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d 1372, 1375 (11th Cir. 1986) (where

parties agreed to entry of order or judgment without reservation of issues sought to

be appealed, one party may not later seek to upset judgment unless lack of consent

or failure of subject matter jurisdiction is alleged; merits may be considered where

party preserved issue). 

We find that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over this action

and that we have jurisdiction over this appeal, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (district courts

shall have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under laws of United States),

1292(a)(1) (courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory order

granting or refusing to modify injunction); ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of

Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2011) (appellate court reviews existence of

subject matter jurisdiction de novo); Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc. v. X One X Prod., 644

F.3d 584, 590 (8th Cir. 2011) (appellate court has jurisdiction over appeal of entry of

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the District of South Dakota.

-2-
permanent injunction). We also find that the permanent injunction was narrowly

tailored to correct Lytle’s violations of the FDCA, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d); cf. Doe

v. South Iron R-1 Sch. Dist., 498 F.3d 878, 884 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding appellate

court must carefully review injunction to determine that it is not overly broad; finding

not overly broad the succinct, clearly written, conduct-limited preliminary

injunction). 

The district court’s grant of a permanent injunction is affirmed. We deny

Lytle’s pending motion to quash a grand jury subpoena and for the return of his

property.

______________________________

-3-