Apache Village, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 86CA0419

• Decision Date: 08 June 1989
• Docket Number: No. 86CA0419,86CA0419
• Parties: APACHE VILLAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COLEMAN COMPANY; Ted G. Berryhill; Johnny Ketelsen Recreational Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Ketelsen Campers of Colorado; Randall Ketelsen; Gary Ketelsen; and John Ketelsen, Defendants- Appellees. . III
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 1154

776 P.2d 1154

APACHE VILLAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COLEMAN COMPANY; Ted G. Berryhill; Johnny Ketelsen

Recreational Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Ketelsen

Campers of Colorado; Randall Ketelsen;

Gary Ketelsen; and John

Ketelsen,

Defendants-

Appellees.

No. 86CA0419.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. III.

June 8, 1989.

Mitchem & Mitchem, P.C., James E. Mitchem, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cortez & Friedman, P.C., Miles C. Cortez, Jr. and David H. Wollins, Englewood, for defendants-appellees The Coleman Co. and Ted G. Berryhill.

Hamilton, Myer, Swanson, Faatz & Clark, John T. Willson, Denver, for defendants-appellees Johnny Ketelsen Recreational Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Ketelsen Campers of Colorado, Randall Ketelsen, Gary Ketelsen and John Ketelsen.

METZGER, Judge.

Plaintiff, Apache Village, Inc. (Apache), appeals the preliminary injunction entered against it in favor of defendants, The Coleman Company (Coleman) and Johnny Ketelsen Recreational Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Ketelsen Campers of Colorado (Ketelsen). Apache's primary contention is that the trial court's failure to comply with the provisions of C.R.C.P. 65(c) concerning the requirement of bond renders the injunction invalid. We agree, vacate the injunction, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Coleman and Ketelsen were granted a temporary restraining order which prevented Apache from using the Coleman trade name or trademark, from representing Apache as an authorized dealer, and from making false statements regarding Coleman's products. By agreement of the parties, the temporary restraining order became a preliminary injunction.

The threshold question, raised by this court, is whether Colorado or Kansas law should govern this appeal of the injunction. The dealership agreement specifically provides that Kansas law shall govern all disputes; nevertheless, the trial court and the parties used only Colorado law in the proceedings under review here. Upon analysis of the supplemental briefs we had requested on this issue, we conclude that resolution of the issue concerning the propriety of issuance of the preliminary injunction should be guided by Colorado law.

Since the forum court is more concerned with the function and administration of its courts, its procedural laws should govern. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 122 comment a (1971). C.R.C.P. 65, which codifies the standards for issuance of preliminary injunctions, is procedural in nature.

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 130 (1971) provides: "The local law of the forum determines the methods of securing obedience to orders of the court." Injunction is one of the means used to secure such obedience. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 130 comment a (1971). Hence, because preliminary injunctions are procedural in nature, and because of the interest Colorado courts have in their administrative processes, we will apply Colorado law to the issue discussed in this...