United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division
SIERRA R.V. CORPORATION, a Utah corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
HEARTLAND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. WARNER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
parties in this case have consented to Chief Magistrate Judge
Paul M. Warner conducting all proceedings, including entry of
final judgment, with appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. Before the court is Plaintiff and
Counterclaim Defendant Sierra R.V. Corporation's
(“Sierra”) motion for preliminary
injunction. The court has carefully reviewed the
written memoranda submitted by the parties on that motion.
Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for
the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary
and will decide the motion on the basis of the written
memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
is a recreational vehicle dealer with its principal place of
business in Marriott-Slaterville, Utah. Defendant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC
(“Heartland”) is a manufacturer of recreational
vehicles that conducts business in Utah.
alleges that it entered into an exclusive territory agreement
with Heartland, under which Heartland agreed to provide
Sierra with an exclusive market for Heartland's Road
Warrior product line for a portion of the State of Utah.
Sierra also alleges that Heartland breached the agreement by
allowing another dealer to sell Road Warrior products within
that exclusive market. Heartland contends that it never
entered into any formal agreement with Sierra.
motion before the court, Sierra seeks a preliminary
injunction that would (1) prohibit Heartland from providing
any Road Warrior products to any retailer doing business
within the exclusive market, (2) prohibit Heartland from
representing the public that Road Warrior products can be
acquired in the exclusive market from any entity other than
Sierra, and (3) require Heartland to secure the return of all
Road Warrior products Heartland supplied to retailers other
than Sierra in the exclusive market, to the extent Heartland
can lawfully do so.
Tenth Circuit “will only set aside a denial of a
preliminary injunction if it is based on an error of law or
constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Keirnan v.
Utah Transit Auth., 339 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2003)
(quotations and citations omitted). In order to obtain a
preliminary injunction, Sierra must establish the following
(1) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not
(2) its threatened injury outweighs the harm caused to the
opposing party as a result of the injunction, (3) the
injunction is not adverse to the public interest, and (4) it
has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite
Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1260 (10th Cir. 2004).
In examining these factors, courts have consistently noted
that [b]ecause a showing of probable irreparable harm is the
single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction, the moving party must first
demonstrate that such injury is likely before the other
requirements for the issuance of an injunction will be
Id. (quotations and citations omitted) (alteration
whether irreparable harm exists can be a difficult and close
question.” Id. at 1262. The Tenth Circuit has
“noted that [t]he concept of irreparable harm . . .
does not readily lend itself to definition, nor is it an easy
burden to ...