Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

FED. TRADE COMMI. v. NAT. UROLOGICAL GRP, 356 Fed.Appx. 358 (11th Cir. 2009)

Fed. TRADE Comm’n, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v.NATIONAL UROLOGICAL Grp., INC., d.b.a. Warner Laboratories,Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Nat’l Inst. for ClinicalWeight Loss, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals,Inc., Corps., Jared Wheat, Thomasz Holda, individually & asofficers of the Corps., Stephen Smith, individually & as officerof Nat’l Urological Grp.,

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-12-15
Topic
general

FED. TRADE COMMI. v. NAT. UROLOGICAL GRP, 356 Fed.Appx. 358 (11th Cir. 2009) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v.NATIONAL UROLOGICAL GROUP, INC., d.b.a. Warner Laboratories,Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, National Institute for ClinicalWeight Loss, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals,Inc., corporations, Jared Wheat, Thomasz Holda, individually and asofficers of the corporations, Stephen Smith, individually and as officerof National Urological Group, Inc., and National Institute for ClinicalWeight Loss, Inc., Terrill Mark Wright, M.D., individually.,Defendants-Appellants.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed FED. TRADE COMMI. v. NAT. UROLOGICAL GRP, 356 Fed.Appx. 358 (11th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

FED. TRADE COMMI. v. NAT. UROLOGICAL GRP,356 Fed.Appx. 358(11th Cir. 2009)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v.
NATIONAL UROLOGICAL GROUP, INC., d.b.a. Warner Laboratories,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, National Institute for Clinical
Weight Loss, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., corporations, Jared Wheat, Thomasz Holda, individually and as
officers of the corporations, Stephen Smith, individually and as officer
of National Urological Group, Inc., and National Institute for Clinical
Weight Loss, Inc., Terrill Mark Wright, M.D., individually.,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 09-10617.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
December 15, 2009.
Leslie R. Melman, John F. Daly, Rm. H-582, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.Page 359
Edmund J. Novotny, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell Berkowitz. P.C., Atlanta, GA, Joseph Paul Schilleci, Jr., Natter Fulmer, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 04-03294-CV-CAP-1.
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After' having thoroughly reviewed the record, the briefs and having heard oral argument in this case, we are of the opinion that the well-reasoned decision and the judgement of the district court should be and isAFFIRMED.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩