USA v. Pinnacle Quest International, No. 08-13860 (11th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 08-13860 _____________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JAN 30, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D.C. Docket No. 08-00136-CV-3-RV/EMT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PINNACLE QUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC., SYNERGY PRODUCTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CLAUDIA HIRMER, DOVER PERRY, Defendants-Appellants, MDC PRODUCTIONS, et al., Defendants. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ____________ (January 30, 2009) Before HULL, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: After review and oral argument, the court concludes that appellants Pinnacle Quest International, Inc., et al., have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction as set forth in its order dated May 15, 2008. Appellants also have not shown that the district court s order violates the First Amendment; rather, the order affects commercial speech that by substantial evidence is shown to be false and deceptive and promotes illegal activity.1 See United States v. Schulz, 517 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Gleason, 432 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2005); United States. v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Estate Preserv. Serv., 202 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Kaun, 827 F.2d 1144 (7th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED. 1 In an order dated August 8, 2008, the district court granted in part the appellants request to stay the preliminary injunction until it rendered a final judgment in the case. There was no cross-appeal of this stay. In any event, having affirmed the district court s preliminary injunction, we leave it to the district court to determine in the first instance whether to revise the stay. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.