Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, T.C. Jacoby & Co., 924 F.2d 98, 103 (6th Cir.1991); cf. 19 Charles Wright, Arthur Miller & Edward Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4513 (2009) (noting that federal standards apply to preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders because they are “neither final determinations of the parties’ rights nor final relief’ in contrast to permanent injunctions which “involve entirely different considerations, and in general may be granted in a diversity ease only if authorized by the relevant state law”). Even if application of federal standards were to lead to a different result than Colorado law, the Court would apply federal preliminary injunction standards. See Ferrero v. Associated Materials Inc., 923 F.2d 1441, 1448 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Here, Big O requests a preliminary injunction
holding that when there are no other remedies it is appropriate for the courts to imply one under the state constitution holding that under alabama law the law of the forum applies to procedural matters and that in most instances the statute of limitations is considered to be a procedural rule holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that fedrcivp 65 is a procedural rule and applying it in a case arising out of a covenant not to compete where the state law presumed that injunctions are appropriate remedies and that they should issue except in limited cases