# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 37 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
20 35 , Inc ., a cor

po rat io n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Ro be rt Lar ry

Ly tl e, an in di vi du al , do in g b us in es s as 20 35 PMA, d oi ng bu si ne ss as

QLase rs PMA

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Rap id Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Aug us t 3 1, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 6, 2 01 6 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.In Ly tl e v. U.S. Dep ’t of Heal th & Hum an Serv s., 612 F. App ’x 86 1 (8t h Cir.

20 15 ), we affi rm ed th e d i s t r ic t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of Ly tl e’s de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n, bu t rem an de d fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n th e d i s t r i ct co ur t’s pr el im in ary 1 in jun ct io n in th e go ve rn m en t’s se pa rat e ci vi l en fo rcem en t act io n ag ai ns t Ly tl e un de r th e Fed eral Fo od , Drug , and Co sm et ic Act (F DCA). 21 U.S.C. § 3 01 et s eq

.
Afte r co ns id eri ng du rin g it s po st -rem an d h e a r i n g th e ei gh t ob jecti on s th at Ly tl e’s co un se l rai se d wit h res pe ct to th e co ur t’s pr op os ed pe rm an en t in jun ct io n, th e di st ric t co ur t en te red th e in jun ct io n, fr om

whi ch Ly tl e n ow ap pe al s.

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts on ap pe al , we co nc lu de th at th e on ly is su es be fo re us a r e whe th er su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts an d whe th er Ly tl e’s pr es erv ed ob jecti on s to t h e pe rm an en t in jun ct io n ha ve m eri t. See Dor se v. Arm st ro ng W or ld In du s., In c., 79 8 F.2 d 13 72 , 13 75 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 86 ) (wh ere pa rti es ag reed to en try o f or de r or jud gm en t wi th ou t re se rv at io n o f is su es so ug ht to be ap pe al ed , o ne pa rt y may n o t l a te r se ek to up se t jud gm en t un le ss la ck of co ns en t

or fai lu re of s u b

je c t m at te r juri sd ic ti on is al le ge d; m eri ts m ay be co ns id ered whe re pa rty pres erv ed is su e).

W e fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on ov er th is act io n
an d th at we ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er th is ap pe al , se e 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 31 (d is tri ct co ur ts sh al l ha ve or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ov er ci vi l act io ns ari si ng un de r la ws of Uni te d St at es ), 12 92 (a)( 1 ) ( c o u r ts of ap pe al s ha ve juri sd ic ti on of ap pe al s fro m in te rlo cu to ry or de r gr an ti ng or re f

u s i ng to m od ify in

jun ct io n) ; ABF Frei gh t Sy s., In c. v. In t’l Bh d. of Te a ms t e r s , 6 45 F.3 d 95 4, 95 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie ws ex is te nc e of

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo ); W arn er Bro s. Ent m ’t, In c. v. X One X Pro d., 64 4 F.3 d 58 4, 59 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ap pe ll at e co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on ov er ap pe al of en try of

The Hon or ab le Je ffre y L. Vik en , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

. -2

-pe rm an en t in jun ct io n)

. W e al so fin d th at th e p e r m an en t in jun ct io n was na rro wly ta il or ed to co rrec t Ly tl e’s vi ol at io ns of th e FDCA, se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 65 (d ); cf. Doe

v. So ut h Iro n R-1 Sch

. Dis t., 49 8 F.3 d 87 8, 88 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng ap pe ll at e
co ur t m us t care fu ll y rev ie w in

jun ct io n to de te rm in e th at it is no t ov erl y br oa d; fin di ng
no t ov erl y br oa d th e su cci nc t, cl earl y writ t e n , c on du ct -li m it ed pr el im in ary in jun ct io n)

.

Th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a pe rm an en t in jun ct io n is affi rm ed

. We d e n y Lyt le ’s pe nd in g m ot io n to qu as h a gr an d jury su bp oe na an d fo r th e ret ur n o f h i s pr op ert y
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-